netdev - Re: [PATCH] i40e: print correct hw max rss count in kernel ring buffer

lists.openwall.net		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 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2024 14:49:26 +0000
From: Simon Horman <horms@...nel.org>
To: Suresh Kumar <suresh2514@...il.com>
Cc: jesse.brandeburg@...el.com, anthony.l.nguyen@...el.com,
	davem@...emloft.net, edumazet@...gle.com, kuba@...nel.org,
	pabeni@...hat.com, intel-wired-lan@...ts.osuosl.org,
	netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] i40e: print correct hw max rss count in kernel ring
 buffer

On Fri, Jan 19, 2024 at 06:46:52PM +0530, Suresh Kumar wrote:
> The value printed for  "HW max RSS count" is wrong in kernel dmesg for i40e
> NICs:
> 
>   ... i40e 0000:63:00.0: User requested queue count/HW max RSS count: 48/64
> 
> whereas  ethtool reports the correct value from "vsi->num_queue_pairs"
> 
> Channel parameters for eno33:
> Pre-set maximums:
> RX:     n/a
> TX:     n/a
> Other:      1
> Combined:   96
> Current hardware settings:
> RX:     n/a
> TX:     n/a
> Other:      1
> Combined:   96  <-------
> 
> and is misleading.
> 
> This value is printed from 'pf->rss_size_max' which seems hardcoded.
> 
> Below commit also removed this 64 limit:
> 
> Commit e56afa599609d3afe8b0ce24b553ab95e9782502
> Author: Amritha Nambiar <amritha.nambiar@...el.com>
> Date:   Wed Nov 8 16:38:43 2017 -0800
> 
>     i40e: Remove limit of 64 max queues per channel

Hi Suresh,

I think it would be more normal to cite this commit something like this:

The limit of 64 was removed by
commit e56afa599609 ("i40e: Remove limit of 64 max queues per channel")

Also, it's not clear to me if this should be considered a fix or not.
If not, which I lean towards, then it should probably be targeted
at iwl-next.

	Subject: [PATCH iwl-next] ...

If it is a fix, then it should have a Fixes tag and probably
be targeted at iwl.

	Subject: [PATCH iwl] ...

...