lists  /  announce  owl-users  owl-dev  john-users  john-dev  passwdqc-users  yescrypt  popa3d-users  /  oss-security  kernel-hardening  musl  sabotage  tlsify  passwords  /  crypt-dev  xvendor  /  Bugtraq  Full-Disclosure  linux-kernel  linux-netdev  linux-ext4  PHC 
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:   Tue, 21 Mar 2017 11:24:45 +1100
From:   Gavin Shan <>
To:     Bodong Wang <>
Cc:     Gavin Shan <>,,,,, Eli Cohen <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] pci/sriov: Add an option to probe VFs or not before
 enabling SR-IOV

On Mon, Mar 20, 2017 at 06:34:23PM -0500, Bodong Wang wrote:
>On 3/20/2017 6:07 PM, Gavin Shan wrote:
>>On Mon, Mar 20, 2017 at 05:14:34PM +0200, wrote:
>>>From: Bodong Wang <>
>>>Sometimes it is not desirable to probe the virtual functions after
>>>SRIOV is enabled. This can save host side resource usage by VF
>>>instances which would be eventually probed to VMs.
>>>Added a new PCI sysfs interface "sriov_probe_vfs" to control that
>>>from PF, all current callers still retain the same functionality.
>>>To modify it, echo 0/n/N (disable probe) or 1/y/Y (enable probe) to
>>>Note that, the choice must be made before enabling VFs. The change
>>>will not take effect if VFs are already enabled. Simply, one can set
>>>sriov_numvfs to 0, choose whether to probe or not, and then resume
>>Bodong, I'm not sure if there is a requirement to load driver for the
>>specified number of VFs? That indicates no driver will be loaded for
>>other VFs. If so, this interface might serve the purpose as well.
>Gavin, thanks for the review. That is indeed an interesting suggestion.
>Theoretically,  we can change that probe_vfs from boolean to integer. And use
>it as a counter to probe the first N VFs(if N < total_vfs).  Let's see if
>there are any objections.


>>+#ifdef CONFIG_PCI_IOV
>>+	if (!pci_dev->is_virtfn ||
>>+	    (pci_dev->is_virtfn && pci_dev->physfn->sriov->probe_vfs)) {
>>+		error = __pci_device_probe(drv, pci_dev);
>>+		if (error) {
>>+			pcibios_free_irq(pci_dev);
>>+			pci_dev_put(pci_dev);
>>+		}
>>+#ifdef CONFIG_PCI_IOV
>>	}
>>I think it's reasonable to have a inline function for this check:
>It's doable, but what's the benefit?
>>static inline bool pci_device_can_probe(struct pci_dev *pdev)
>>	return (!pdev->is_virtfn || pdev->physfn->sriov->probe_vfs);
>should be return (!pdev->is_virtfn || (pci_dev->is_virtfn &&
>We want to probe that device if 1) it's a PF 2) it'a VF and probe_vfs is set
>>static inline bool pci_device_can_probe(struct pci_dev *pdev)
>>	return true;
>This function will be a waste if CONFIG_PCI_IOV is not defined.

It makes the code a bit clean. Nope, the proposed conditional
expression is elaborate. Yeah, the purpose is exactly same as
you said: probe driver for non-VF or VFs that were allowed.

     (!pdev->is_virtfn || pdev->physfn->sriov->probe_vfs);

When pdev->is_virtfn is flase, "pdev->physfn->sriov->probe_vfs"
doesn't take effect. Otherwise, it means pdev->is_virtfn is true
indirectly and going to check "pdev->physfn->sriov->probe_vfs".
So it needn't check pdev->is_virtfn explicitly in later case,
but it isn't wrong :)


Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux - Powered by OpenVZ