Re: [REGRESSION] v6.8 SMC-D issues

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 





On 2024/1/25 16:26, Alexandra Winter wrote:


On 25.01.24 05:59, Wen Gu wrote:
After a while debug I found an elementary mistake of mine in
b40584d ("net/smc: compatible with 128-bits extended GID of virtual ISM device")..

The operator order in smcd_lgr_match() is not as expected. It will always return
'true' in remote-system case.

  static bool smcd_lgr_match(struct smc_link_group *lgr,
-                          struct smcd_dev *smcismdev, u64 peer_gid)
+                          struct smcd_dev *smcismdev,
+                          struct smcd_gid *peer_gid)
  {
-       return lgr->peer_gid == peer_gid && lgr->smcd == smcismdev;
+       return lgr->peer_gid.gid == peer_gid->gid && lgr->smcd == smcismdev &&
+               smc_ism_is_virtual(smcismdev) ?
+               (lgr->peer_gid.gid_ext == peer_gid->gid_ext) : 1;
  }

Could you please try again with this patch? to see if this is the root cause.
Really sorry for the inconvenience.

diff --git a/net/smc/smc_core.c b/net/smc/smc_core.c
index da6a8d9c81ea..c6a6ba56c9e3 100644
--- a/net/smc/smc_core.c
+++ b/net/smc/smc_core.c
@@ -1896,8 +1896,8 @@ static bool smcd_lgr_match(struct smc_link_group *lgr,
                            struct smcd_gid *peer_gid)
  {
         return lgr->peer_gid.gid == peer_gid->gid && lgr->smcd == smcismdev &&
-               smc_ism_is_virtual(smcismdev) ?
-               (lgr->peer_gid.gid_ext == peer_gid->gid_ext) : 1;
+               (smc_ism_is_virtual(smcismdev) ?
+                (lgr->peer_gid.gid_ext == peer_gid->gid_ext) : 1);
  }


Thanks,
Wen Gu

Hello Wen Gu,

thank you for the quick resposne and for finding this nasty bug.
I can confirm that with your patch I do not see the issue anymore.

Thank you very much for your confirmation, Alexandra.

Please send a fix to the mailing lists. See
https://docs.kernel.org/process/handling-regressions.html
for some tips.


Thank you. Will do.

May I propose that instead of adding the brackets, you change this function
to an if-then-else sequence for readability and maintainability?
I would still mention the missing brackets in the commit message, so
readers can quickly understand the issue.

I agree. if-then-else will make it clearer. I will fix it like this:

diff --git a/net/smc/smc_core.c b/net/smc/smc_core.c
index da6a8d9c81ea..1d5bce82d4d8 100644
--- a/net/smc/smc_core.c
+++ b/net/smc/smc_core.c
@@ -1895,9 +1895,15 @@ static bool smcd_lgr_match(struct smc_link_group *lgr,
                           struct smcd_dev *smcismdev,
                           struct smcd_gid *peer_gid)
 {
-       return lgr->peer_gid.gid == peer_gid->gid && lgr->smcd == smcismdev &&
-               smc_ism_is_virtual(smcismdev) ?
-               (lgr->peer_gid.gid_ext == peer_gid->gid_ext) : 1;
+       if (lgr->peer_gid.gid != peer_gid->gid ||
+           lgr->smcd != smcismdev)
+               return false;
+
+       if (smc_ism_is_virtual(smcismdev) &&
+           lgr->peer_gid.gid_ext != peer_gid->gid_ext)
+               return false;
+
+       return true;
 }

Thanks again,
Wen Gu


Thanks again for the quick response.
Sandy




[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[Index of Archives]     [Kernel Development]     [Kernel Newbies]     [IDE]     [Security]     [Git]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite Info]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Linux ATA RAID]     [Samba]     [Linux Media]     [Device Mapper]

  Powered by Linux