On 10/28/19 9:58 AM, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 28, 2019 at 04:46:09PM +0000, Adit Ranadive wrote:
>> On 10/28/19 9:27 AM, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
>>> On Tue, Oct 22, 2019 at 08:06:50PM +0000, Adit Ranadive wrote:
>>>> @@ -195,7 +198,9 @@ struct ib_qp *pvrdma_create_qp(struct ib_pd *pd,
>>>> union pvrdma_cmd_resp rsp;
>>>> struct pvrdma_cmd_create_qp *cmd = &req.create_qp;
>>>> struct pvrdma_cmd_create_qp_resp *resp = &rsp.create_qp_resp;
>>>> + struct pvrdma_cmd_create_qp_resp_v2 *resp_v2 = &rsp.create_qp_resp_v2;
>>>> struct pvrdma_create_qp ucmd;
>>>> + struct pvrdma_create_qp_resp qp_resp = {};
>>>> unsigned long flags;
>>>> int ret;
>>>> bool is_srq = !!init_attr->srq;
>>>> @@ -260,6 +265,15 @@ struct ib_qp *pvrdma_create_qp(struct ib_pd *pd,
>>>> goto err_qp;
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>> + /* Userspace supports qpn and qp handles? */
>>>> + if (dev->dsr_version >= PVRDMA_QPHANDLE_VERSION &&
>>>> + udata->outlen != sizeof(qp_resp)) {
>>>
>>> Is != really what you want? Or is <= better? != means you can't ever
>>> make qp_resp bigger.
>>
>> I thought about using != or < before sending the patch. Since we removed
>> the flag anyways using != here made sense to be more strict about what's
>> acceptable. I'm not sure if we'll ever make it bigger.
>
> It is a big gamble you will never need to add new entries to this
> struct forever more. Better to be safe, IMHO.
>
Okay. Will send a v3 for this.
