Subject: Re: [PATCH rdma-next 00/24] Extend DEVX functionality

From: Leon Romanovsky <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2018 23:20:33 +0300

On Mon, Sep 17, 2018 at 11:13:55PM +0300, Or Gerlitz wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 17, 2018 at 11:07 PM, Leon Romanovsky <[email-masked]> wrote:
> > On Mon, Sep 17, 2018 at 10:51:29PM +0300, Or Gerlitz wrote:
> >> On Mon, Sep 17, 2018 at 10:34 PM, Leon Romanovsky <[email-masked]> wrote:
> >> > On Mon, Sep 17, 2018 at 02:03:53PM +0300, Leon Romanovsky wrote:
> >> >> From: Leon Romanovsky <[email-masked]>
> >> >>
> >> >> From Yishai,
> >> >>
> >> >> This series comes to enable the DEVX functionality in some wider scope,
> >> >> specifically,
> >> >> - It enables using kernel objects that were created by the verbs
> >> >>   API in the DEVX flow.
> >> >> - It enables white list commands without DEVX user context.
> >> >> - It enables the IB link layer under CAP_NET_RAW capabilities.
> >> >> - It exposes the PRM handles for RAW QP (i.e. TIRN, TISN, RQN, SQN)
> >> >>   to be used later on directly by the DEVX interface.
> >> >>
> >> >> In General,
> >> >> Each object that is created/destroyed/modified via verbs will be stamped
> >> >> with a UID based on its user context. This is already done for DEVX objects
> >> >> commands.
> >> >>
> >> >> This will enable the firmware to enforce the usage of kernel objects
> >> >> from the DEVX flow by validating that the same UID is used and the resources are
> >> >> really related to the same user.
> >> >>
> >> >> For example in case a CQ was created with verbs it will be stamped with
> >> >> UID and once will be pointed by a DEVX create QP command the firmware will
> >> >> validate that the input CQN really belongs to the UID which issues the create QP
> >> >> command.
> >> >>
> >> >> As of the above, all the PRM objects (except of the public ones which
> >> >> are managed by the kernel e.g. FLOW, etc.) will have a UID upon their
> >> >> create/modify/destroy commands. The detection of UMEM / physical
> >> >> addressed in the relevant commands will be done by firmware according to a 'umem
> >> >> valid bit' as the UID may be used in both cases.
> >> >>
> >> >> The series also enables white list commands which don't require a
> >> >> specific DEVX context, instead of this a device UID is used so that
> >> >> the firmware will mask un-privileged functionality. The IB link layer
> >> >> is also enabled once CAP_NET_RAW permission exists.
> >> >>
> >> >> To enable using the RAW QP underlay objects (e.g. TIRN, RQN, etc.) later
> >> >> on by DEVX commands the UHW output for this case was extended to return this
> >> >> data when a DEVX context is used.
> >> >>
> >> >> Thanks
> >> >>
> >> >> Leon Romanovsky (1):
> >> >>   net/mlx5: Update mlx5_ifc with DEVX UID bits
> >> >>
> >> >> Yishai Hadas (24):
> >> >>   net/mlx5: Set uid as part of CQ commands
> >> >>   net/mlx5: Set uid as part of QP commands
> >> >>   net/mlx5: Set uid as part of RQ commands
> >> >>   net/mlx5: Set uid as part of SQ commands
> >> >>   net/mlx5: Set uid as part of SRQ commands
> >> >>   net/mlx5: Set uid as part of DCT commands
> >> >
> >> > Hi Doug and Jason,
> >> >
> >> > Do you want me to resend 7 patches above in one series and other patches
> >> > in another series just to be below 15 patches limit? Please be aware
> >> > that those patches above are going to mlx5-next and not to
> >> > net-next/rdma-next.
> >> >
> >> > No rebase, no code change, no much meaning too, but it is your call.
> >>
> >> how about yes! for stop shitting on Dave Miller?
> >
> > Or, are you ok?
> >
> > This series is not relevant to Dave Miller and he didn't even listed in CC or TO.
>
> correct, but Dave asked MLNX/Saeed to do X, you should respect X when you post
> to the community Dave is maintaining, even if he didn't ask you, not
> doing so hurts
> our positioning with Dave.

Saeed is going to see/apply/review first 7 patches, which is less than 15,
so we are ok here.

>
>
> >
> > I still prefer to hear answer from respective maintainer to whom this
> > series was sent.
>
> Your maintainer asked you to do X, just do it, once and for all

Both Doug and Jason known how to write emails, they will request "X"
if THEY decide that it is needed/better, there is no need to be their
voice.

Thanks