On Tue, Apr 30, 2019 at 02:54:08PM -0300, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 30, 2019 at 05:23:22PM +0300, Shamir Rabinovitch wrote:
> > future patch will remove the ib_uobject pointer from the ib_x
> > objects. the uobj_get_obj_read and uobj_put_obj_read macros
> > were constructed with the ability to reach the ib_uobject from
> > ib_x in mind. this need to change now.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Shamir Rabinovitch <shamir.rabinovitch@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > drivers/infiniband/core/uverbs_cmd.c | 165 +++++++++++++++++++++------
> > include/rdma/uverbs_std_types.h | 8 +-
> > 2 files changed, 137 insertions(+), 36 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/infiniband/core/uverbs_cmd.c b/drivers/infiniband/core/uverbs_cmd.c
> > index 76ac113d1da5..93363c41e77e 100644
> > +++ b/drivers/infiniband/core/uverbs_cmd.c
> > @@ -37,6 +37,7 @@
> > #include <linux/fs.h>
> > #include <linux/slab.h>
> > #include <linux/sched.h>
> > +#include <linux/list.h>
> >
> > #include <linux/uaccess.h>
> >
> > @@ -700,6 +701,7 @@ static int ib_uverbs_reg_mr(struct uverbs_attr_bundle *attrs)
> > struct ib_uverbs_reg_mr cmd;
> > struct ib_uverbs_reg_mr_resp resp;
> > struct ib_uobject *uobj;
> > + struct ib_uobject *pduobj;
> > struct ib_pd *pd;
> > struct ib_mr *mr;
> > int ret;
> > @@ -720,7 +722,8 @@ static int ib_uverbs_reg_mr(struct uverbs_attr_bundle *attrs)
> > if (IS_ERR(uobj))
> > return PTR_ERR(uobj);
> >
> > - pd = uobj_get_obj_read(pd, UVERBS_OBJECT_PD, cmd.pd_handle, attrs);
> > + pd = uobj_get_obj_read(pd, UVERBS_OBJECT_PD, cmd.pd_handle, attrs,
> > + pduobj);
>
> This should be &pduobj in all places so it reads sensibly..
OK. Will change the macro.
>
> > @@ -2009,6 +2034,12 @@ static int ib_uverbs_post_send(struct uverbs_attr_bundle *attrs)
> > const struct ib_sge __user *sgls;
> > const void __user *wqes;
> > struct uverbs_req_iter iter;
> > + struct uobj_list_item {
> > + struct list_head list;
> > + struct ib_uobject *uobj;
> > + };
> > + struct uobj_list_item *item, *tmp;
> > + LIST_HEAD(ud_uobj_list);
>
> I'd rather not add this for AH's if we don't plan to drop the uobject
> pointer right away.. Same for the other place making a big logic
> change
What's the concern? We drop the uobject in (almost) same line of code
where the current code do that. The uobjects are not held beyond the
function. Can you elaborate?
Thanks
>
> Jason
