On 2020/12/10 21:45, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 10, 2020 at 04:00:16AM +0000, liweihang wrote:
>> On 2020/12/10 5:09, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
>>> 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
>>>> +++ 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
>>>
>>
>> Hi Jason,
>>
>> Thanks for your comments, I understand that error that can be triggered by
>> userspace shouldn't use WARN_ON(). So I shouldn't use WARN_ON() in
>> hns_roce_v2_set_path().
>>
>> As for the error in process of post_send, you suggested me to warn_on if
>> a kernel user try to pass in an illegal opcode. So I guess I should use
>> WARN_ON() too in sl's check when filling a UD WQE. Am I right?
>
> Userspace should not be able to trigger warn_on
>
> Bad kernel ULPs are OK to trigger warn_on
>
> Jason
>
I see, Thank you.
Weihang
