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:	Sun, 24 Apr 2016 01:03:59 +0300
From:	Ido Schimmel <idosch@...lanox.com>
To:	Saeed Mahameed <saeedm@....mellanox.co.il>
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

Sat, Apr 23, 2016 at 11:21:45PM IDT, saeedm@....mellanox.co.il wrote:
>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).

Yea, I don't think that part was available back then? I just directly
set a value in firmware memory hoping it would be the default in the
next version following my report.

>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.

I'll check that tomorrow morning and report.

>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).

Great!

>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.

See PFCC register:

"Setting pfctx / pfcrx when the link is up takes effect immediately."

Thanks.

Powered by blists - more mailing lists