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
| ||
|
Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2014 20:01:04 -0700 From: Alexander Duyck <alexander.duyck@...il.com> To: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, hariprasad@...lsio.com CC: netdev@...r.kernel.org, leedom@...lsio.com, nirranjan@...lsio.com, kumaras@...lsio.com, anish@...lsio.com Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next] cxgb4: Fix for SR-IOV VF initialization On 07/22/2014 03:34 PM, David Miller wrote: > From: Hariprasad Shenai <hariprasad@...lsio.com> > Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2014 16:26:20 +0530 > >> Commit 35b1de5 ("rdma/cxgb4: Fixes cxgb4 probe failure in VM when PF is exposed >> through PCI Passthrough") introduced a regression, where VF failed to >> initialize. This commit fixes it. >> >> Signed-off-by: Casey Leedom <leedom@...lsio.com> >> Signed-off-by: Hariprasad Shenai <hariprasad@...lsio.com> > > This commit message need to explain things better, how exactly was > the regression introduced, what's exactly wrong with the current code? > > I actually can't figure it out myself, other than to say that maybe > replacing things with: > > func = PCI_FUNC(pdev->devfn); > if (func < ARRAY_SIZE(num_vf) && num_vf[func] > 0) > if (pci_enable_sriov(pdev, num_vf[func]) == 0) > > would work equally as well. That's precisely what the code was > doing before the mentioned commit. > > Why do we have to iterate over _ALL_ functions of the PCI device, > rather than just directly enable SRIOV on the one function whether > it bet PCI_FUNC(pdev->devfn) or that WHOAMI value? > > You need to explain this so that people understand the how and the > why of your changes. > > Thanks. What it looks like it is doing is forcing the loop to iterate over multiple PFs enabling SR-IOV on each one. Same thing for disabling on remove. I would think this would fail for a multifunction device since calling this a pci_enable_sriov a second time with values when SR-IOV is enabled should return -EINVAL. I thought the use of module parameters for SR-IOV had been deprecated in favor of the PCI sysfs approach? It seems like switching over might be a better way to resolve whatever issue this was trying to address. Thanks, Alex -- 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
Powered by blists - more mailing lists