netdev - Re: [PATCH] bnx2x: suppress repeated error messages about Max BW

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

Message-ID: <1313434042.30399.0.camel@lb-tlvb-eilong.il.broadcom.com>
Date:	Mon, 15 Aug 2011 21:47:22 +0300
From:	"Eilon Greenstein" <eilong@...adcom.com>
To:	"Michal Schmidt" <mschmidt@...hat.com>
cc:	"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	"Dmitry Kravkov" <dmitry@...adcom.com>,
	"Vladislav Zolotarov" <vladz@...adcom.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] bnx2x: suppress repeated error messages about Max
 BW

On Mon, 2011-08-15 at 08:13 -0700, Michal Schmidt wrote:
> On 08/15/2011 02:33 PM, Eilon Greenstein wrote:
> > On Mon, 2011-08-15 at 04:59 -0700, Michal Schmidt wrote:
> >> and bnx2x_init_vn_minmax() calls bnx2x_extract_max_cfg() on the given
> >> VN, so it seems that the warning can be produced for a non-current VN.
> >
> > You are right, only one function (the PMF) will call this code for all
> > functions. But I suspect that if you have zero values, you will have
> > them for all VNs - is that the case?
> 
> A tester reported getting only these 4 messages with the patch applied:
> 
> [bnx2x_extract_max_cfg:1074(eth4)]Illegal configuration detected for Max 
> BW on vn 2 - using 100 instead
> [bnx2x_extract_max_cfg:1074(eth5)]Illegal configuration detected for Max 
> BW on vn 2 - using 100 instead
> [bnx2x_extract_max_cfg:1074(eth6)]Illegal configuration detected for Max 
> BW on vn 3 - using 100 instead
> [bnx2x_extract_max_cfg:1074(eth7)]Illegal configuration detected for Max 
> BW on vn 3 - using 100 instead
> 
> This suggests that VNs 0 and 1 had non-zero Max BW configuration.

Michal - this is a great point of data! It helped me finding a bug in
that code - the code is not suitable for 4 port devices, it always
assumes 4 VN per PCI function, while in 4 port devices there are only 2
VN per PCI function. I assume that you are seeing this problem on a
57800 with 2x10G + 2x1G - and the 1G devices are in single function mode
and therefore you are seeing this error message. I will send a patch to
fix the problem on 4 port devices soon (after testing it for a while) -
please confirm that you are seeing this issue on 2x10G+2x1G 57800
device.

Now it all makes sense to me - it’s not just misconfigured board
workaround, this is a real issue :)

Thanks for helping in identifying it!
Eilon



--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html