[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <745e6518-6253-4ef0-8f05-1421ee4e1fef@intel.com>
Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2023 13:02:22 +0100
From: Wojciech Drewek <wojciech.drewek@...el.com>
To: Suman Ghosh <sumang@...vell.com>, <sgoutham@...vell.com>,
<gakula@...vell.com>, <sbhatta@...vell.com>, <hkelam@...vell.com>,
<lcherian@...vell.com>, <jerinj@...vell.com>,
<davem@...emloft.net>, <edumazet@...gle.com>, <kuba@...nel.org>,
<pabeni@...hat.com>, <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <horms@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [net PATCH] octeontx2-pf: Fix ntuple rule creation to direct
packet to VF with higher Rx queue than its PF
On 20.11.2023 06:51, Suman Ghosh wrote:
> It is possible to add a ntuple rule which would like to direct packet to
> a VF whose number of queues are greater/less than its PF's queue numbers.
> For example a PF can have 2 Rx queues but a VF created on that PF can have
> 8 Rx queues. As of today, ntuple rule will reject rule because it is
> checking the requested queue number against PF's number of Rx queues.
> As a part of this fix if the action of a ntuple rule is to move a packet
> to a VF's queue then the check is removed. Also, a debug information is
> printed to aware user that it is user's responsibility to cross check if
> the requested queue number on that VF is a valid one.
>
> Fixes: f0a1913f8a6f ("octeontx2-pf: Add support for ethtool ntuple filters")
> Signed-off-by: Suman Ghosh <sumang@...vell.com>
> ---
> .../marvell/octeontx2/nic/otx2_flows.c | 21 +++++++++++++++++++
> 1 file changed, 21 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/marvell/octeontx2/nic/otx2_flows.c b/drivers/net/ethernet/marvell/octeontx2/nic/otx2_flows.c
> index 4762dbea64a1..4200f2d387f6 100644
> --- a/drivers/net/ethernet/marvell/octeontx2/nic/otx2_flows.c
> +++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/marvell/octeontx2/nic/otx2_flows.c
> @@ -1088,6 +1088,7 @@ int otx2_add_flow(struct otx2_nic *pfvf, struct ethtool_rxnfc *nfc)
> struct ethhdr *eth_hdr;
> bool new = false;
> int err = 0;
> + u64 vf_num;
> u32 ring;
>
> if (!flow_cfg->max_flows) {
> @@ -1100,9 +1101,26 @@ int otx2_add_flow(struct otx2_nic *pfvf, struct ethtool_rxnfc *nfc)
> if (!(pfvf->flags & OTX2_FLAG_NTUPLE_SUPPORT))
> return -ENOMEM;
>
> + /* Number of queues on a VF can be greater or less than
> + * the PF's queue. Hence no need to check for the
> + * queue count. Hence no need to check queue count if PF
> + * is installing for its VF. Below is the expected vf_num value
> + * based on the ethtool commands.
> + *
> + * e.g.
> + * 1. ethtool -U <netdev> ... action -1 ==> vf_num:255
> + * 2. ethtool -U <netdev> ... action <queue_num> ==> vf_num:0
> + * 3. ethtool -U <netdev> ... vf <vf_idx> queue <queue_num> ==>
> + * vf_num:vf_idx+1
> + */
> + vf_num = ethtool_get_flow_spec_ring_vf(fsp->ring_cookie);
> + if (!is_otx2_vf(pfvf->pcifunc) && vf_num)
> + goto bypass_queue_check;
Let's just add this condition to the next if, no need for goto.
> +
> if (ring >= pfvf->hw.rx_queues && fsp->ring_cookie != RX_CLS_FLOW_DISC)
> return -EINVAL;
>
> +bypass_queue_check:
> if (fsp->location >= otx2_get_maxflows(flow_cfg))
> return -EINVAL;
>
> @@ -1182,6 +1200,9 @@ int otx2_add_flow(struct otx2_nic *pfvf, struct ethtool_rxnfc *nfc)
> flow_cfg->nr_flows++;
> }
>
> + if (flow->is_vf)
> + netdev_info(pfvf->netdev,
> + "Make sure that VF's queue number is within its queue limit\n");
> return 0;
> }
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists