On Wed, Dec 19, 2018 at 07:14:12PM +0000, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 19, 2018 at 04:28:15PM +0200, Leon Romanovsky wrote:
> > From: Yishai Hadas <yishaih@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >
> > The driver needs to prevent a user space application to create a
> > UMEM and UCTX via the general object command.
> >
> > The UMEM must go through the kernel UMEM_REG method to prevent the user
> > from setting physical addresses by himself. The UCTX is some internal
> > kernel object and shouldn't be exposed.
> >
> > As of not being any more part of the general object the caps bits were
> > moved to be some log_xxx indication in the general HCA caps, 0 means not
> > supported.
> >
> > The firmware code was adapted as well to match the above.
>
> This commit message is a bit wonky.. how about
>
> IB/mlx5: Use the correct commands for UMEM and UCTX allocation
>
> During testing the command format was changed to close a security
> hole. Revise the driver to use the command format that will actually
> be supported in GA firmware.
>
> Both the UMEM and UCTX are intended only for use by the kernel and
> cannot be executed using a general command.
>
> Since the UMEM and CTX are not part of the general object the caps
> bits were moved to be some log_xxx location in the general HCA caps.
I'm fine with this description too.
>
> > Signed-off-by: Yishai Hadas <yishaih@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Reviewed-by: Achiad Shochat <achiad@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Signed-off-by: Leon Romanovsky <leonro@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
> Also add a fixes line please, any kernel with the devx needs this
> patch to work with GA firmware.
Fixes: a8b92ca1b0e5 ("IB/mlx5: Introduce DEVX")
>
> > drivers/infiniband/hw/mlx5/devx.c | 34 ++++++++---------
> > drivers/infiniband/hw/mlx5/main.c | 3 +-
> > include/linux/mlx5/mlx5_ifc.h | 62 +++++++++++++++++++++----------
> > 3 files changed, 58 insertions(+), 41 deletions(-)
>
> Otherwise the patch looks fine, please apply to the shared branch..
Jason,
I have procedural question. This patch is based on rdma-next and there
is diversion in both devx.c and main.c in those areas, enough do not
apply cleanly. Will it be easier if you take this patch to rdma-next,
instead me applying different patch to mlx5-next and you hitting merge
conflict later on while trying to merge it into rdma-next?
Thanks
>
> Thanks,
> Jason
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
