[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <7dcd5d24-800b-4c58-a308-e0fda2b8dfbc@intel.com>
Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2023 10:11:47 +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 v2] octeontx2-pf: Fix ntuple rule creation to direct
packet to VF with higher Rx queue than its PF
On 21.11.2023 17:56, 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>
> ---
Reviewed-by: Wojciech Drewek <wojciech.drewek@...el.com>
> v2 changes:
> - Removed 'goto' and added the new condition to existing if check.
>
> .../marvell/octeontx2/nic/otx2_flows.c | 20 ++++++++++++++++++-
> 1 file changed, 19 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/marvell/octeontx2/nic/otx2_flows.c b/drivers/net/ethernet/marvell/octeontx2/nic/otx2_flows.c
> index 4762dbea64a1..97a71e9b8563 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) {
> @@ -1100,7 +1101,21 @@ int otx2_add_flow(struct otx2_nic *pfvf, struct ethtool_rxnfc *nfc)
> if (!(pfvf->flags & OTX2_FLAG_NTUPLE_SUPPORT))
> return -ENOMEM;
>
> - if (ring >= pfvf->hw.rx_queues && fsp->ring_cookie != RX_CLS_FLOW_DISC)
> + /* 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 &&
> + ring >= pfvf->hw.rx_queues && fsp->ring_cookie != RX_CLS_FLOW_DISC)
> return -EINVAL;
>
> if (fsp->location >= otx2_get_maxflows(flow_cfg))
> @@ -1182,6 +1197,9 @@ 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