On Mon, 1 Feb 2021, Ben Widawsky wrote:
> I haven't seen the update to 220.127.116.11.5 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
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?