Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Date:   Mon, 1 Feb 2021 15:58:09 -0800 (PST)
From:   David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>
To:     Ben Widawsky <ben.widawsky@intel.com>
cc:     linux-cxl@vger.kernel.org, linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-nvdimm@lists.01.org,
        linux-pci@vger.kernel.org, Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@kernel.org>,
        Chris Browy <cbrowy@avery-design.com>,
        Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>,
        Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com>,
        Ira Weiny <ira.weiny@intel.com>,
        Jon Masters <jcm@jonmasters.org>,
        Jonathan Cameron <Jonathan.Cameron@huawei.com>,
        Rafael Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>,
        Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@infradead.org>,
        Vishal Verma <vishal.l.verma@intel.com>,
        daniel.lll@alibaba-inc.com,
        "John Groves (jgroves)" <jgroves@micron.com>,
        "Kelley, Sean V" <sean.v.kelley@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 03/14] cxl/mem: Find device capabilities
In-Reply-To: <20210201231718.2hwaqgn2f7kc7usw@intel.com>
Message-ID: <a789317e-2ac2-10a1-dedd-1851972e3d6b@google.com>
References: <234711bf-c03f-9aca-e0b5-ca677add3ea@google.com> <20210201165352.wi7tzpnd4ymxlms4@intel.com> <32f33dd-97a-8b1c-d488-e5198a3d7748@google.com> <20210201215857.ud5cpg7hbxj2j5bx@intel.com> <b46ed01-3f1-6643-d371-7764c3bde4f8@google.com>
 <20210201222859.lzw3gvxuqebukvr6@intel.com> <20210201223314.qh24uxd7ajdppgfl@intel.com> <f86149f8-3aea-9d8c-caa9-62771bf22cb5@google.com> <20210201225052.vrrvuxrsgmddjzbb@intel.com> <79b98f60-151b-6c80-65c3-91a37699d121@google.com>
 <20210201231718.2hwaqgn2f7kc7usw@intel.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, 1 Feb 2021, Ben Widawsky wrote:

> > I haven't seen the update to 8.2.8.4.5 to know yet :)
> > 
> > You make a good point of at least being able to interact with the driver.  
> > I think you could argue that if the driver binds, then the payload size is 
> > accepted, in which case it would be strange to get an EINVAL when using 
> > the ioctl with anything >1MB.
> > 
> > Concern was that if we mask off the reserved bits from the command 
> > register that we could be masking part of the payload size that is being 
> > passed if the accepted max is >1MB.  Idea was to avoid any possibility of 
> > this inconsistency.  If this is being checked for ioctl, seems like it's 
> > checking reserved bits.
> > 
> > But maybe I should just wait for the spec update.
> 
> Well, I wouldn't hold your breath (it would be an errata in this case anyway).
> My preference would be to just allow allow mailbox payload size to be 2^31 and
> not deal with this.
> 
> My question was how strongly do you feel it's an error that should prevent
> binding.
> 

I don't have an objection to binding, but doesn't this require that the 
check in cxl_validate_cmd_from_user() guarantees send_cmd->size_in cannot 
be greater than 1MB?