netdev - Re: [PATCH RFC net-next 3/4] net/mlx5: Separate between eswitch and MPFS l2 table logic

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: <CAJ3xEMi9+iaa3CCA-gdBC7Okz3KgpWbea-vvfYEJFpTQkboxUA@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Thu, 8 Jun 2017 12:13:18 +0300
From:   Or Gerlitz <gerlitz.or@...il.com>
To:     Saeed Mahameed <saeedm@...lanox.com>
Cc:     Linux Netdev List <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        Jes Sorensen <jsorensen@...com>,
        Kernel Team <kernel-team@...com>,
        Or Gerlitz <ogerlitz@...lanox.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC net-next 3/4] net/mlx5: Separate between eswitch and
 MPFS l2 table logic

On Thu, Jun 8, 2017 at 2:42 AM, Saeed Mahameed <saeedm@...lanox.com> wrote:
[...]
>  9 files changed, 376 insertions(+), 223 deletions(-)

a bit of heavy duty for this sort of sensitive change, should
investigate if it can be broken a bit

> +int mlx5_mpfs_init(struct mlx5_core_dev *dev)
> +{
> +       int l2table_size = 1 << MLX5_CAP_GEN(dev, log_max_l2_table);
> +       struct mlx5_mpfs *mpfs;
> +
> +       if (!MLX5_VPORT_MANAGER(dev))
> +               return 0;

In commit 955bc48081805c053 we added

+ static bool mlx5e_is_eswitch_vport_mngr(struct mlx5_core_dev *mdev)
+{
+       return (MLX5_CAP_GEN(mdev, vport_group_manager) &&
+               MLX5_CAP_GEN(mdev, port_type) == MLX5_CAP_PORT_TYPE_ETH);
+}
+

and now you add

+#define MLX5_VPORT_MANAGER(mdev) \
+       (MLX5_CAP_GEN(mdev, vport_group_manager) && mlx5_core_is_pf(mdev))
+

would be good to align things across the place with a pre-patch and
then use the whatever check
we need to apply

BTW  mlx5e_is_eswitch_vport_mngr() should return false in the down
stream patch when eswitch is compiled out, right?

> +void mlx5_mpfs_cleanup(struct mlx5_core_dev *dev)
> +{
> +       struct mlx5_mpfs *mpfs = dev->priv.mpfs;
> +
> +       if (!MLX5_VPORT_MANAGER(dev))
> +               return;
> +
> +       WARN_ON(!hlist_empty(mpfs->hash));

I don't see any line with WARN_ON that was deleted by this patch, why add that?

> +       kfree(mpfs->bitmap);
> +       kfree(mpfs);
> +}
> +
> +int mlx5_mpfs_add_mac(struct mlx5_core_dev *dev, u8 *mac)
> +{

> +       if (!MLX5_VPORT_MANAGER(dev))
> +               return 0;
> +
> +       if (is_multicast_ether_addr(mac))
> +               return 0;

It would have been much better reviewed and maintained if we can code
things in a manner under which we don't get here if not appropriate and
not simulate successful return.

> +int mlx5_mpfs_del_mac(struct mlx5_core_dev *dev, u8 *mac)
> +{

> +       if (!MLX5_VPORT_MANAGER(dev))
> +               return 0;
> +
> +       if (is_multicast_ether_addr(mac))
> +               return 0;

same comment as for the add_mac call