Re: [PATCH for-next v3 3/4] RDMA/efa: User/kernel compatibility handshake mechanism

[Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@ziepe.ca>]

On Wed, Jul 22, 2020 at 03:13:57PM +0300, Gal Pressman wrote:
> On 22/07/2020 15:08, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> > On Wed, Jul 22, 2020 at 03:04:20PM +0300, Gal Pressman wrote:
> >> On 22/07/2020 14:55, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> >>> On Tue, Jul 21, 2020 at 04:30:48PM +0300, Gal Pressman wrote:
> >>>> Introduce a mechanism that performs an handshake between the userspace
> >>>> provider and kernel driver which verifies that the user supports all
> >>>> required features in order to operate correctly.
> >>>>
> >>>> The handshake verifies the needed functionality by comparing the
> >>>> reported device caps and the provider caps. If the device reports a
> >>>> non-zero capability the appropriate comp mask is required from the
> >>>> userspace provider in order to allocate the context.
> >>>>
> >>>> Reviewed-by: Shadi Ammouri <sammouri@amazon.com>
> >>>> Reviewed-by: Yossi Leybovich <sleybo@amazon.com>
> >>>> Signed-off-by: Gal Pressman <galpress@amazon.com>
> >>>>  drivers/infiniband/hw/efa/efa_verbs.c | 49 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> >>>>  include/uapi/rdma/efa-abi.h           | 10 ++++++
> >>>>  2 files changed, 59 insertions(+)
> >>>>
> >>>> diff --git a/drivers/infiniband/hw/efa/efa_verbs.c b/drivers/infiniband/hw/efa/efa_verbs.c
> >>>> index 26102ab333b2..7ca40df81ee5 100644
> >>>> +++ b/drivers/infiniband/hw/efa/efa_verbs.c
> >>>> @@ -1501,11 +1501,48 @@ static int efa_dealloc_uar(struct efa_dev *dev, u16 uarn)
> >>>>  	return efa_com_dealloc_uar(&dev->edev, &params);
> >>>>  }
> >>>>  
> >>>> +#define EFA_CHECK_COMP(_dev, _comp_mask, _attr, _mask)                         \
> >>>> +	(!(_dev)->dev_attr._attr || ((_comp_mask) & (_mask)))
> >>>> +
> >>>> +#define DEFINE_COMP_HANDSHAKE(_dev, _comp_mask, _attr, _mask)                  \
> >>>> +	{                                                                      \
> >>>> +		.attr = #_attr,                                                \
> >>>> +		.check_comp = EFA_CHECK_COMP(_dev, _comp_mask, _attr, _mask)   \
> >>>> +	}
> >>>> +
> >>>> +int efa_user_comp_handshake(const struct ib_ucontext *ibucontext,
> >>>> +			    const struct efa_ibv_alloc_ucontext_cmd *cmd)
> >>>> +{
> >>>> +	struct efa_dev *dev = to_edev(ibucontext->device);
> >>>> +	int i;
> >>>> +	struct {
> >>>> +		char *attr;
> >>>> +		bool check_comp;
> >>>> +	} user_comp_handshakes[] = {
> >>>> +		DEFINE_COMP_HANDSHAKE(dev, cmd->comp_mask, max_tx_batch,
> >>>> +				      EFA_ALLOC_UCONTEXT_CMD_COMP_TX_BATCH),
> >>>> +		DEFINE_COMP_HANDSHAKE(dev, cmd->comp_mask, min_sq_depth,
> >>>> +				      EFA_ALLOC_UCONTEXT_CMD_COMP_MIN_SQ_WR),
> >>>> +	};
> >>>
> >>> This seems like a very expensive construct
> >>>
> >>> Why have the array at all? Just list the macros and have them jump to
> >>> err
> >>
> >> Do you mean:
> >>
> >> if (CHECK_COMP(x1)) {
> >>     ibdev_dbg(err);
> >>     goto err;
> >> }
> >>
> >> if (CHECK_COMP(x2)) {
> >>     ibdev_dbg(err);
> >>     goto err;
> >> }
> >>
> >> [...]
> >>
> >> That adds much more boilerplate code for each feature. Or do you have something
> >> else in mind?
> > 
> > #define DO_COMP_HANDSHAKE() \
> >     if (...) goto err
> > 
> > DO_COMP_HANDSHAKE(x1)
> > DO_COMP_HANDSHAKE(2)
> 
> I'd rather not have gotos inside macros, I find that very confusing.
> I can add the ifs I suggested if you want the array removed.

IHMO it barely seems worth all the macros in the first place, and
constructing that whole array on the stack at runtime is pretty
horrible

Jason