linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH net-next 3/4] net/mlx5: Expose crr in health 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]

Message-ID: <3c8badc3-2f1e-4877-a770-ad133f69f14a@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2025 12:34:41 +0200
From: Tariq Toukan <ttoukan.linux@...il.com>
To: Michal Swiatkowski <michal.swiatkowski@...ux.intel.com>,
 Tariq Toukan <tariqt@...dia.com>
Cc: "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, Jakub Kicinski
 <kuba@...nel.org>, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
 Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>, Andrew Lunn <andrew+netdev@...n.ch>,
 Saeed Mahameed <saeedm@...dia.com>, Gal Pressman <gal@...dia.com>,
 Leon Romanovsky <leonro@...dia.com>, Leon Romanovsky <leon@...nel.org>,
 netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Shahar Shitrit <shshitrit@...dia.com>,
 Moshe Shemesh <moshe@...dia.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 3/4] net/mlx5: Expose crr in health buffer



On 27/02/2025 7:56, Michal Swiatkowski wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 26, 2025 at 02:25:42PM +0200, Tariq Toukan wrote:
>> From: Shahar Shitrit <shshitrit@...dia.com>
>>
>> Expose crr bit in struct health buffer. When set, it indicates that
>> the error cannot be recovered without flow involving a cold reset.
>> Add its value to the health buffer info log.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Shahar Shitrit <shshitrit@...dia.com>
>> Reviewed-by: Moshe Shemesh <moshe@...dia.com>
>> Signed-off-by: Tariq Toukan <tariqt@...dia.com>
>> ---
>>   drivers/net/ethernet/mellanox/mlx5/core/health.c | 8 ++++++++
>>   1 file changed, 8 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/mellanox/mlx5/core/health.c b/drivers/net/ethernet/mellanox/mlx5/core/health.c
>> index 665cbce89175..c7ff646e0865 100644
>> --- a/drivers/net/ethernet/mellanox/mlx5/core/health.c
>> +++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/mellanox/mlx5/core/health.c
>> @@ -96,6 +96,11 @@ static int mlx5_health_get_rfr(u8 rfr_severity)
>>   	return rfr_severity >> MLX5_RFR_BIT_OFFSET;
>>   }
>>   
>> +static int mlx5_health_get_crr(u8 rfr_severity)
>> +{
>> +	return (rfr_severity >> MLX5_CRR_BIT_OFFSET) & 0x01;
>> +}
>> +
>>   static bool sensor_fw_synd_rfr(struct mlx5_core_dev *dev)
>>   {
>>   	struct mlx5_core_health *health = &dev->priv.health;
>> @@ -442,12 +447,15 @@ static void print_health_info(struct mlx5_core_dev *dev)
>>   	mlx5_log(dev, severity, "time %u\n", ioread32be(&h->time));
>>   	mlx5_log(dev, severity, "hw_id 0x%08x\n", ioread32be(&h->hw_id));
>>   	mlx5_log(dev, severity, "rfr %d\n", mlx5_health_get_rfr(rfr_severity));
>> +	mlx5_log(dev, severity, "crr %d\n", mlx5_health_get_crr(rfr_severity));
>>   	mlx5_log(dev, severity, "severity %d (%s)\n", severity, mlx5_loglevel_str(severity));
>>   	mlx5_log(dev, severity, "irisc_index %d\n", ioread8(&h->irisc_index));
>>   	mlx5_log(dev, severity, "synd 0x%x: %s\n", ioread8(&h->synd),
>>   		 hsynd_str(ioread8(&h->synd)));
>>   	mlx5_log(dev, severity, "ext_synd 0x%04x\n", ioread16be(&h->ext_synd));
>>   	mlx5_log(dev, severity, "raw fw_ver 0x%08x\n", ioread32be(&h->fw_ver));
>> +	if (mlx5_health_get_crr(rfr_severity))
>> +		mlx5_core_warn(dev, "Cold reset is required\n");
> I wonder if it shouldn't be right after the print about crr value to
> tell the user that cold reset is required because of that value.
> 

I think it's fine here, to not interfere the mlx5_log sequence.
Also, in the future we might have multiple cold reset reasons, 
generating the same single print.

I'll keep it as-is.

> Patch looks fine, thanks.
> Reviewed-by: Michal Swiatkowski <michal.swiatkowski@...ux.intel.com>
> 

Thanks for your review.