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  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:	Sat, 23 Apr 2016 23:21:45 +0300
From:	Saeed Mahameed <saeedm@....mellanox.co.il>
To:	Ido Schimmel <idosch@...lanox.com>
Cc:	Saeed Mahameed <saeedm@...lanox.com>,
	"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
	Linux Netdev List <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	Or Gerlitz <ogerlitz@...lanox.com>,
	Tal Alon <talal@...lanox.com>,
	Eran Ben Elisha <eranbe@...lanox.com>,
	Eugenia Emantayev <eugenia@...lanox.com>,
	Jiri Pirko <jiri@...lanox.com>, eladr@...lanox.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 12/12] net/mlx5e: Disable link up on INIT HCA command

On Sat, Apr 23, 2016 at 7:00 PM, Ido Schimmel <idosch@...lanox.com> wrote:
> mutt suggests I sent you the following patches a while ago:
>
> net/mlx5e: Set port administrative status in ndo_{open, close}
> net/mlx5e: Initialize port administrative status to down
>
> So I'm curious as to why you didn't follow up on them and instead came
> up with this patch.
>
> When I initially debugged this I pointed you to the fact that the
> firmware also needs to be patched, as setting the administrative status
> down via PAOS doesn't really do anything. The operational status will
> remain up. I just tested this patchset with the latest release firmware
> (12.14.2036) and I'm bumping into the same problem.
>

Hi Ido,

I do remember that patch, and back then i told you that your patch is
not cooked enough and that we were working on a solution:

1. you need to negotiate with the FW on if the FW can give up port
ownership to SW, you can find that in handle_hca_cap,
MLX5_CAP_GEN_MAX(dev, disable_link_up).
2. you need to configure the FW to give up port ownership via NVconfig
(mlxconfig tool)  i think it is PORT_OWNER bit, Eran can elaborate
more if needed.
3.1 and 2 are required for  mlx5_set_port_admin_status to take effect,
otherwise it is a NOOP.

Eran tested this patch and it works for him, maybe you missed step 2.
Step 2 will not be required in future FW (it will be the FW default).
Other than this patch, nothing more is required for driver to assume
ownership on port's link status.

> Until this is properly fixed the mlx5 driver is blacklisted in our test:
> https://github.com/jpirko/lnst/blob/master/recipes/switchdev/basic-001-links.py#L19
>
> Also, why is this directed at net-next?
>

it is kind of new behavior, and not a bug fix.

>> drivers/infiniband/hw/mlx5/main.c                  |   11 +++++++++++
>> drivers/infiniband/hw/mlx5/mlx5_ib.h               |    5 +++++
>> drivers/net/ethernet/mellanox/mlx5/core/en_dcbnl.c |    4 ++--
>> .../net/ethernet/mellanox/mlx5/core/en_ethtool.c   |    4 ++--
>> drivers/net/ethernet/mellanox/mlx5/core/en_main.c  |    4 ++++
>> drivers/net/ethernet/mellanox/mlx5/core/main.c     |    4 ++++
>> drivers/net/ethernet/mellanox/mlx5/core/port.c     |    5 +++--
>> include/linux/mlx5/port.h                          |    3 ++-
>> 8 files changed, 33 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
>>
>
> [...]
>
>>diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/mellanox/mlx5/core/en_dcbnl.c b/drivers/net/ethernet/mellanox/mlx5/core/en_dcbnl.c
>>index b2db180..f083797 100644
>>--- a/drivers/net/ethernet/mellanox/mlx5/core/en_dcbnl.c
>>+++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/mellanox/mlx5/core/en_dcbnl.c
>>@@ -202,12 +202,12 @@ static int mlx5e_dcbnl_ieee_setpfc(struct net_device *dev,
>>
>>       mlx5_query_port_admin_status(mdev, &ps);
>>       if (ps == MLX5_PORT_UP)
>>-              mlx5_set_port_admin_status(mdev, MLX5_PORT_DOWN);
>>+              mlx5_set_port_admin_status(mdev, MLX5_PORT_DOWN, 1);
>
> Why is this needed? The link doesn't need to go through training when
> setting PFC. It's only needed for PAUSE frames when auto-negotiation is
> on, but you don't support that anyway.
>
> Thanks.
>

The code was there before this patch, only the function prototype was changed.
Maybe you have a valid point here, but this need to be fixed in a
different patch, it has nothing to do with this one.
Eran and Team please check this on Sunday, I found nothing re this
matter in PRM.

Powered by blists - more mailing lists