netdev - RE: error message: VF is not privileged to issue opcode 89-1

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: <3BB8C5C6B04A1F4CBE5B241DA98A501E2D56803E@CMEXMB1.ad.emulex.com>
Date:	Fri, 20 Dec 2013 16:42:54 +0000
From:	Ajit Khaparde <Ajit.Khaparde@...lex.Com>
To:	vaughan <vaughan.cao@...cle.com>,
	"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: RE: error message: VF is not privileged to issue opcode 89-1



>  be2net 0000:30:04.0: VF is not privileged to issue opcode 34-1
>  be2net 0000:30:04.0: Emulex OneConnect(be3): VF  port 0
> ...
> 
> But the module gets loaded and VFs are created.
> Also when the module is unloaded, below errors are seen in syslog:
>   be2net 0000:30:04.0: VF is not privileged to issue opcode 89-1
> 
> I checked the code, this error occurs in be_probe() and the error opcode
> 89 is OPCODE_COMMON_SET_INTERRUPT_ENABLE, which is essential for an
> initializing process IMO. And I also found this thread
> https://lkml.org/lkml/2013/5/14/690, which shows there is a bug that VFs
> will be probed before PFs. According to this thread, I guess I may
> encountered the same error.
> Anyone can confirm if this is a real error like I guess? Thanks.
The VFs on Emulex devices are assigned limited privileges unlike PFs.
Due to this certain commands sent to the firmware end up a response as seen in the logs.
In most of the cases the log message is informational and does not really impact normal I/O operations.

But for this particular message pertaining to opcode 89, I will have to check with the firmware team as well.
We will get back to you on that.

Could you send the output of ethtool -i?
I am interested in the firmware version on the card.

Thanks