On Fri, Dec 04, 2020 at 06:40:30PM +0800, Weihang Li wrote:
> According to the RoCE v1 specification, the sl (service level) 0-7 are
> mapped directly to priorities 0-7 respectively, sl 8-15 are reserved. The
> driver should verify whether the value of sl is larger than 7, if so, an
> exception should be returned.
>
> Fixes: 172505cfa3a8 ("RDMA/hns: Add check for the validity of sl configuration")
> Fixes: d6a3627e311c ("RDMA/hns: Optimize wqe buffer set flow for post send")
> Signed-off-by: Weihang Li <liweihang@xxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> drivers/infiniband/hw/hns/hns_roce_hw_v2.c | 10 +++++-----
> 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/infiniband/hw/hns/hns_roce_hw_v2.c b/drivers/infiniband/hw/hns/hns_roce_hw_v2.c
> index 7a0c1ab..15e1313 100644
> --- a/drivers/infiniband/hw/hns/hns_roce_hw_v2.c
> +++ b/drivers/infiniband/hw/hns/hns_roce_hw_v2.c
> @@ -433,6 +433,10 @@ static int fill_ud_av(struct hns_roce_v2_ud_send_wqe *ud_sq_wqe,
> V2_UD_SEND_WQE_BYTE_36_TCLASS_S, ah->av.tclass);
> roce_set_field(ud_sq_wqe->byte_40, V2_UD_SEND_WQE_BYTE_40_FLOW_LABEL_M,
> V2_UD_SEND_WQE_BYTE_40_FLOW_LABEL_S, ah->av.flowlabel);
> +
> + if (WARN_ON(ah->av.sl > MAX_SERVICE_LEVEL))
> + return -EINVAL;
> +
> roce_set_field(ud_sq_wqe->byte_40, V2_UD_SEND_WQE_BYTE_40_SL_M,
> V2_UD_SEND_WQE_BYTE_40_SL_S, ah->av.sl);
>
> @@ -4609,12 +4613,8 @@ static int hns_roce_v2_set_path(struct ib_qp *ibqp,
> memset(qpc_mask->dgid, 0, sizeof(grh->dgid.raw));
>
> hr_qp->sl = rdma_ah_get_sl(&attr->ah_attr);
> - if (unlikely(hr_qp->sl > MAX_SERVICE_LEVEL)) {
> - ibdev_err(ibdev,
> - "failed to fill QPC, sl (%d) shouldn't be larger than %d.\n",
> - hr_qp->sl, MAX_SERVICE_LEVEL);
> + if (WARN_ON(hr_qp->sl > MAX_SERVICE_LEVEL))
> return -EINVAL;
> - }
>
> roce_set_field(context->byte_28_at_fl, V2_QPC_BYTE_28_SL_M,
> V2_QPC_BYTE_28_SL_S, hr_qp->sl);
Can any of these warn_on's be triggered by user space? That would not
be OK
Jason
