RE: [PATCH v2 2/2] RDMA/core: Initialize port_num in qp_attr

[Ismail, Mustafa]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Kalderon, Michal [mailto:Michal.Kalderon@xxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Wednesday, July 19, 2017 3:10 AM
> To: Marciniszyn, Mike <mike.marciniszyn@xxxxxxxxx>; Ismail, Mustafa
> <mustafa.ismail@xxxxxxxxx>; linux-rdma@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx;
> dledford@xxxxxxxxxx
> Cc: swise@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx;
> stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; e1000-rdma@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Saleem, Shiraz
> <shiraz.saleem@xxxxxxxxx>; Amrani, Ram <Ram.Amrani@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: RE: [PATCH v2 2/2] RDMA/core: Initialize port_num in qp_attr
> 
> > From: linux-rdma-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:linux-rdma-
> > owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Marciniszyn, Mike
> > > Initialize the port_num for iWARP in rdma_init_qp_attr.
> > >
> > > Fixes: 5ecce4c9b17b("Check port number supplied by user verbs cmds")
> > > Cc: <stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> # v2.6.14+
> > > Reviewed-by: Steve Wise <swise@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > Signed-off-by: Mustafa Ismail <mustafa.ismail@xxxxxxxxx>
> >
> Why is the second patch required if you only validate the port_num if the
> IB_QP_PORT mask is on?
> Given the first patch [PATCH v2 1/2] RDMA/uverbs: Fix the check for port
> number, this one seems redundant.
Strictly speaking it is not required, but we felt it safer to always return a valid port number
as is done in the IB case.

Regards,

Mustafa