On Thu, Dec 20, 2018 at 08:21:33AM +0200, Leon Romanovsky wrote: > 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? Sure, but it has the unsplit _ifc update... I think we are at the end of the cycle so this probably won't make a conflict - lets just go in RDMA then. Jason