netdev - Re: [PATCH net 2/2] net/mlx4_core: mlx4_init_slave() shouldn't access comm channel before PF is ready

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]

Date:	Thu, 06 Mar 2014 16:12:58 -0500 (EST)
From:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To:	or.gerlitz@...il.com
Cc:	amirv@...lanox.com, ogerlitz@...lanox.com, yevgenyp@...lanox.com,
	Narendra_K@...l.com, Sreekanth_Reddy@...l.com,
	netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net 2/2] net/mlx4_core: mlx4_init_slave() shouldn't
 access comm channel before PF is ready

From: Or Gerlitz <or.gerlitz@...il.com>
Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2014 23:08:36 +0200

> On Thu, Mar 6, 2014 at 10:48 PM, David Miller <davem@...emloft.net> wrote:
>> From: Or Gerlitz <or.gerlitz@...il.com>
>> Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2014 22:19:48 +0200
>>> On Thu, Mar 6, 2014 at 10:12 PM, David Miller <davem@...emloft.net> wrote:
> 
>>>> > +static atomic_t pf_loading = ATOMIC_INIT(0);
>>>> > @@ -1407,6 +1409,11 @@ static int mlx4_init_slave(struct mlx4_dev *dev)
>>>> > +     if (atomic_read(&pf_loading)) {
>>>> > +             mlx4_warn(dev, "PF is not ready. Deferring probe\n");
>>>> > +             return -EPROBE_DEFER;
>>>> > +     }
>>>> > +
>>>> > @@ -2319,7 +2326,11 @@ static int __mlx4_init_one(struct pci_dev *pdev, int pci_dev_data)
>>>> >
>>>> >               if (num_vfs) {
>>>> >                       mlx4_warn(dev, "Enabling SR-IOV with %d VFs\n",num_vfs);
>>>> > +
>>>> > +                     atomic_inc(&pf_loading);
>>>> >                       err = pci_enable_sriov(pdev, num_vfs);
>>>> > +                     atomic_dec(&pf_loading);
>>>> > +
> 
>>>> This synchronization scheme doesn't look right to me at all.
>>>> It's global, so VF's for _any_ PF will probe defer while one is enabling SRIOV.
>>>> It doesn't seem correct to cause unrelated VF's to defer the probe.
> 
>>> Can you please elaborate a bit why you find this approach to be
>>> incorrect? basically, these nested VF probed are a bit headache
>>> anyway, so we didn't find such global deferring to be problematic.
> 
>> What if a second PF starts to init and call pci_enable_sriov(), while the VFs
>> from a previous PF probed call mlx4_init_slave()?
>> It will increment pf_loading() and force those unreladed VFs to defer.
> 
> By "unreladed VFs" I assume you mean unrelated VFs that belong to the
> 1st VF, which is OK for them to probe, right? so yes, this is sort of
> conservative approach that wait till all PFs are fully ready, and I
> understand you don't like it, but still, I would be happy to know
> what's wrong in doing so..

My understanding is that the relationship between these devices is:

	PF --> VF1, VF2, VF3, ...

and these VF children are (essentially) instantiated by
pci_enable_sriov() calls.

Therefore if we:

	probe PF1

we go:

	pf_loading++
	pci_enable_sriov();
	PF1_VF1 defers
	PF1_VF2 defers
	PF1_VF3 defers
	...
	pf_loading--

next:

	probe PF2

	pf_loading++
..

at this point any attempt of PF1's VFs to init will defer, what will
cause them to properly retry that init?
--
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