netdev - Re: [net 03/15] net/mlx5: E-switch, Fix duplicate lag creation

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <f0f7f0c1-e7c5-1083-2511-c94bde3814a0@intel.com>
Date:   Mon, 28 Nov 2022 15:23:27 -0800
From:   Jacob Keller <jacob.e.keller@...el.com>
To:     Saeed Mahameed <saeed@...nel.org>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
        Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
        Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>
CC:     Saeed Mahameed <saeedm@...dia.com>, <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        Tariq Toukan <tariqt@...dia.com>, Chris Mi <cmi@...dia.com>,
        Roi Dayan <roid@...dia.com>, Mark Bloch <mbloch@...dia.com>,
        Vlad Buslov <vladbu@...dia.com>
Subject: Re: [net 03/15] net/mlx5: E-switch, Fix duplicate lag creation



On 11/24/2022 12:10 AM, Saeed Mahameed wrote:
> From: Chris Mi <cmi@...dia.com>
> 
> If creating bond first and then enabling sriov in switchdev mode,
> will hit the following syndrome:
> 
> mlx5_core 0000:08:00.0: mlx5_cmd_out_err:778:(pid 25543): CREATE_LAG(0x840) op_mod(0x0) failed, status bad parameter(0x3), syndrome (0x7d49cb), err(-22)
> 
> The reason is because the offending patch removes eswitch mode
> none. In vf lag, the checking of eswitch mode none is replaced
> by checking if sriov is enabled. But when driver enables sriov,
> it triggers the bond workqueue task first and then setting sriov
> number in pci_enable_sriov(). So the check fails.
> 
> Fix it by checking if sriov is enabled using eswitch internal
> counter that is set before triggering the bond workqueue task.
> 
> Fixes: f019679ea5f2 ("net/mlx5: E-switch, Remove dependency between sriov and eswitch mode")
> Signed-off-by: Chris Mi <cmi@...dia.com>
> Reviewed-by: Roi Dayan <roid@...dia.com>
> Reviewed-by: Mark Bloch <mbloch@...dia.com>
> Reviewed-by: Vlad Buslov <vladbu@...dia.com>
> Signed-off-by: Saeed Mahameed <saeedm@...dia.com>
> ---
>   drivers/net/ethernet/mellanox/mlx5/core/eswitch.h | 8 ++++++++
>   drivers/net/ethernet/mellanox/mlx5/core/lag/lag.c | 5 +++--
>   2 files changed, 11 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/mellanox/mlx5/core/eswitch.h b/drivers/net/ethernet/mellanox/mlx5/core/eswitch.h
> index f68dc2d0dbe6..3029bc1c0dd0 100644
> --- a/drivers/net/ethernet/mellanox/mlx5/core/eswitch.h
> +++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/mellanox/mlx5/core/eswitch.h
> @@ -736,6 +736,14 @@ void mlx5_eswitch_offloads_destroy_single_fdb(struct mlx5_eswitch *master_esw,
>   					      struct mlx5_eswitch *slave_esw);
>   int mlx5_eswitch_reload_reps(struct mlx5_eswitch *esw);
>   
> +static inline int mlx5_eswitch_num_vfs(struct mlx5_eswitch *esw)
> +{
> +	if (mlx5_esw_allowed(esw))
> +		return esw->esw_funcs.num_vfs;
> +
> +	return 0;
> +}
> +
>   #else  /* CONFIG_MLX5_ESWITCH */
>   /* eswitch API stubs */
>   static inline int  mlx5_eswitch_init(struct mlx5_core_dev *dev) { return 0; }
> diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/mellanox/mlx5/core/lag/lag.c b/drivers/net/ethernet/mellanox/mlx5/core/lag/lag.c
> index be1307a63e6d..4070dc1d17cb 100644
> --- a/drivers/net/ethernet/mellanox/mlx5/core/lag/lag.c
> +++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/mellanox/mlx5/core/lag/lag.c
> @@ -701,8 +701,9 @@ static bool mlx5_lag_check_prereq(struct mlx5_lag *ldev)
>   
>   #ifdef CONFIG_MLX5_ESWITCH
>   	dev = ldev->pf[MLX5_LAG_P1].dev;
> -	if ((mlx5_sriov_is_enabled(dev)) && !is_mdev_switchdev_mode(dev))
> -		return false;
> +	for (i = 0; i  < ldev->ports; i++)
> +		if (mlx5_eswitch_num_vfs(dev->priv.eswitch) && !is_mdev_switchdev_mode(dev))
> +			return false;
>   

Am I missing something? whats with the for loop iterator here? i isn't 
used or passed into these functions?

Do you need to check multiple times or do these functions have some side 
effect? But looking at their implementation neither of them appear to 
have side effects?

What am I missing?

Shouldn't this just be:
>> -	if ((mlx5_sriov_is_enabled(dev)) && !is_mdev_switchdev_mode(dev) >> +	if (mlx5_eswitch_num_vfs(dev->priv.eswitch) && 
!is_mdev_switchdev_mode(dev))
>>  		return false;