Re: [PATCH IB/core 2/2] IB/cm: Send authentic pkey in REQ msg and check eligibility of the pkeys
From: HÃkon Bugge
Date: Tue May 15 2018 - 14:11:40 EST
> On 15 May 2018, at 02:38, Hal Rosenstock <hal@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 5/14/2018 5:02 PM, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
>> On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 05:16:28PM +0200, HÃkon Bugge wrote:
>>> We are talking about two things here. The PKey in the BTH and the
>>> PKey in the CM REQ payload. They differ.
>>> I am out of office, but if my memory serves me correct, the PKey in
>>> the BTH in the MAD packet will be the default PKey. Further, we have
>>> per IBTA:
>> This sounds like a Linux bug.
>> Linux does not do a PR to get a reversible path dedicated to the GMP> so it always uses the data flow path, thus the GMP path paramenters
>> and those in the REQ should always exactly match.
>> Where is Linux setting the BTH.PKey and how did it choose to use the
>> default pkey? Lets fix that at least for sure.
Linux isnât. The BTH.PKey is inserted by the HCA (hw or fw) coming from the P_Key table (10.9.2 in IBTA), selected by a pkey_index associated with the QP.
As per C10-133: Packets sent from the Send Queue of a GSI QP shall attach a P_Key associated with that QP, just as a P_Key is associated with nonmanagement QPs
>> Once that is fixed the rest of the series makes no sense since a REQ
>> with invalid PKey will never arrive.
>> This series seems inconsistent with the spec.
>> IIRC the spec doesn't say if a full or limited pkey should be placed
>> in the REQ (Hal?).
> CM spec for REQ just says partition key without indicating whether this
> means P_Key or just the partition (15 bits) so my read is that either
> full or limited pkey is allowed in REQ.
>> It is designed so that the requestor can get a
>> single reversible path and put that results into the REQ without
>> additional processing, however the PR returns only one PKey and again,
>> it is not really specified if it should be the full or limited pkey
> Correct; it's not specified.
>> Basically this means that any pkey in the REQ could randomly be the
>> full or limited value, and that in-of-itself has not bearing on the
>> So it is quite wrong to insist that the pkey be limited or full when
>> processing the REQ. The end port is expected to match against the
>> local table.
> Note that there is thorny issue with shared (physical) port
> virtualization. In shared port virtualization, the VF pkey assignment is
> a local matter. Only thing SM knows is the physical port pkeys where
> both full and limited membership of same partition is possible. It is
> conceivable that CM REQ contains limited partition key between 2 limited
> VFs and for that a new REJ reason code appears to be needed.
> -- Hal
>> The real answer to your trap problem is to fix the SM to not create
>> paths that are non-functional, that is just flat out broken SM