Message-ID: <YekVLcKZxa7ojNYc@shredder>
Date:   Thu, 20 Jan 2022 09:54:21 +0200
From:   Ido Schimmel <idosch@...sch.org>
To:     Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
Cc:     Michal Kubecek <mkubecek@...e.cz>,
        "netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, michel@...com,
        dcavalca@...com, Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>
Subject: Re: ethtool 5.16 release / ethtool -m bug fix

On Wed, Jan 19, 2022 at 07:39:02AM -0800, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> On Wed, 19 Jan 2022 11:45:41 +0200 Ido Schimmel wrote:
> > On Tue, Jan 18, 2022 at 02:51:59PM -0800, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> > > Hi Michal!
> > > 
> > > Sorry to hasten but I'm wondering if there is a plan to cut the 5.16
> > > ethtool release? Looks like there is a problem in SFP EEPROM parsing
> > > code, at least with QSFP28s, user space always requests page 3 now.
> > > This ends in an -EINVAL (at least for drivers not supporting the paged
> > > mode).  
> > 
> > Jakub, are you sure you are dealing with QSFP and not SFP? I'm asking
> > because I assume the driver in question is mlx5 that has this code in
> > its implementation of get_module_eeprom_by_page():
> > 
> > ```
> > switch (module_id) {
> > case MLX5_MODULE_ID_SFP:
> > 	if (params->page > 0)
> > 		return -EINVAL;
> > 	break;
> > ```
> 
> Yup, it's a QSFP28 / SFF-8636, the report was with a different NIC.
> 
> > And indeed, ethtool(8) commit fc47fdb7c364 ("ethtool: Refactor
> > human-readable module EEPROM output for new API") always asks for Upper
> > Page 03h, regardless of the module type.
> > 
> > It is not optimal for ethtool(8) to ask for unsupported pages and I made
> > sure it's not doing it anymore, but I believe it's wrong for the kernel
> > to return an error. All the specifications that I'm aware of mandate
> > that when an unsupported page is requested, the Page Select byte will
> > revert to 0. That is why Upper Page 00h is always read-only.
> > 
> > For reference, see section 10.3 in SFF-8472, section 6.2.11 in SFF-8636
> > and section 8.2.13 in CMIS.
> > 
> > Also, the entire point of the netlink interface is that the kernel can
> > remain ignorant of the EEPROM layout and keep all the logic in user
> > space.
> 
> The EINVAL came from fallback_set_params().

I see. I was fixated on get_module_eeprom_by_page(), but you are using
the fallback.

> 
> As far as I can see user space will call sff8636_show_dom() regardless
> of what we return from the kernel, so returning first page again should
> not confuse anything.. as long as the fields read from page 3 happen to
> be 0 in page 0?

sff8636_show_dom() parses and prints module-level and channel-level
thresholds from page 3. It will not try to parse or print this
information if the page isn't available. This is determined based on the
'Flat_mem' bit in the lower page.

> 
> What about drivers which do implement get_module_eeprom_by_page? Can we
> somehow ensure they DTRT and are consistent with the legacy / flat API?

Not sure what you mean by that (I believe they are already doing the
right thing). Life is much easier for drivers that implement
get_module_eeprom_by_page() because they only need to fetch the
information user space is asking for. They need not perform any parsing
of the data, unlike in the legacy callbacks.

> 
> > > By the looks of it - Ido fixed this in 6e2b32a0d0ea ("sff-8636: Request
> > > specific pages for parsing in netlink path") but it may be too much code 
> > > to backport so I'm thinking it's easiest for distros to move to v5.16.  
> > 
> > I did target fixes at 'ethtool' and features at 'ethtool-next', but I
> > wasn't aware of this bug.
> 

Powered by blists - more mailing lists