netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next 2/2] net: hns3: add vf fault process in hns3 ras

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: <06188aca-7080-2506-1155-a739d84a420f@huawei.com>
Date:   Tue, 31 Jan 2023 20:04:14 +0800
From:   "wangjie (L)" <wangjie125@...wei.com>
To:     Leon Romanovsky <leon@...nel.org>
CC:     Hao Lan <lanhao@...wei.com>, <davem@...emloft.net>,
        <kuba@...nel.org>, <yisen.zhuang@...wei.com>,
        <salil.mehta@...wei.com>, <edumazet@...gle.com>,
        <pabeni@...hat.com>, <richardcochran@...il.com>,
        <shenjian15@...wei.com>, <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 2/2] net: hns3: add vf fault process in hns3 ras



On 2023/1/21 1:12, Leon Romanovsky wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 18, 2023 at 08:34:03PM +0800, wangjie (L) wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 2023/1/17 19:21, Leon Romanovsky wrote:
>>> On Tue, Jan 17, 2023 at 03:04:15PM +0800, wangjie (L) wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 2023/1/13 14:51, Leon Romanovsky wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, Jan 13, 2023 at 10:08:29AM +0800, Hao Lan wrote:
>>>>>> From: Jie Wang <wangjie125@...wei.com>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Currently hns3 driver supports vf fault detect feature. Several ras caused
>>>>>> by VF resources don't need to do PF function reset for recovery. The driver
>>>>>> only needs to reset the specified VF.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So this patch adds process in ras module. New process will get detailed
>>>>>> information about ras and do the most correct measures based on these
>>>>>> accurate information.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Jie Wang <wangjie125@...wei.com>
>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Hao Lan <lanhao@...wei.com>
>>>>>> ---
>>>>>>  drivers/net/ethernet/hisilicon/hns3/hnae3.h   |   1 +
>>>>>>  .../hns3/hns3_common/hclge_comm_cmd.h         |   1 +
>>>>>>  .../hisilicon/hns3/hns3pf/hclge_err.c         | 113 +++++++++++++++++-
>>>>>>  .../hisilicon/hns3/hns3pf/hclge_err.h         |   2 +
>>>>>>  .../hisilicon/hns3/hns3pf/hclge_main.c        |   3 +-
>>>>>>  .../hisilicon/hns3/hns3pf/hclge_main.h        |   1 +
>>>>>>  6 files changed, 115 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
>>>>>
>>>>> Why is it good idea to reset VF from PF?
>>>>> What will happen with driver bound to this VF?
>>>>> Shouldn't PCI recovery handle it?
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks
>>>>> .
>>>> PF doesn't reset VF directly. These VF faults are detected by hardware,
>>>> and only reported to PF. PF get the VF id from firmware, then notify the VF
>>>> that it needs reset. VF will do reset after receive the request.
>>>
>>> This description isn't aligned with the code. You are issuing
>>> hclge_func_reset_cmd() command which will reset VF, while notification
>>> are handled by hclge_func_reset_notify_vf().
>>>
>>> It also doesn't make any sense to send notification event to VF through
>>> FW while the goal is to recover from stuck FW in that VF.
>>>
>> Yes, I misunderstand the hclge_func_reset_notify_vf and
>> hclge_func_reset_cmd. It should use hclge_func_reset_notify_vf to inform
>> the VF for recovery. I will fix and retest it in V2.
>>
>> This patch is used to recover specific vf hardware errors, for example the
>> tx queue configuration exceptions. It make sense in these cases for the
>> firmware is still working properly and can do the recovery rightly.
>
> If FW is operational and knows about failure, why can't FW do recovery
> internally to that VF without PF involvement?
I'm sorry to reply so late because I took a vacation. If firmware reset VF
hardware directly without notify the running VF driver, it will cause VF
driver works abnormal.

Thanks
>
> Thanks
> .
>