On Wed, Oct 07, 2015 at 01:33:05PM -0400, Doug Ledford wrote:
> On 10/07/2015 01:01 PM, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
> > On Tue, Oct 06, 2015 at 01:44:25PM -0400, Doug Ledford wrote:
> >> On 09/28/2015 05:46 PM, Steve Wise wrote:
> >>> The server rdma_read_chunk_lcl() and rdma_read_chunk_frmr() functions
On 10/07/2015 01:01 PM, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 06, 2015 at 01:44:25PM -0400, Doug Ledford wrote:
>> On 09/28/2015 05:46 PM, Steve Wise wrote:
>>> The server rdma_read_chunk_lcl() and rdma_read_chunk_frmr() functions
>>> were not taking into account the initial page_offset when determi
On Tue, Oct 06, 2015 at 01:44:25PM -0400, Doug Ledford wrote:
> On 09/28/2015 05:46 PM, Steve Wise wrote:
> > The server rdma_read_chunk_lcl() and rdma_read_chunk_frmr() functions
> > were not taking into account the initial page_offset when determining
> > the rdma read length. This resulted in a
On 09/28/2015 05:46 PM, Steve Wise wrote:
> The server rdma_read_chunk_lcl() and rdma_read_chunk_frmr() functions
> were not taking into account the initial page_offset when determining
> the rdma read length. This resulted in a read who's starting address
> and length exceeded the base/bounds of
The server rdma_read_chunk_lcl() and rdma_read_chunk_frmr() functions
were not taking into account the initial page_offset when determining
the rdma read length. This resulted in a read who's starting address
and length exceeded the base/bounds of the frmr.
Most work loads don't tickle this bug a
