netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next 02/12] ice: Remove exclusion code for RDMA+SRIOV

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: <f40f823f-c9d2-331d-71ee-d9f28f7d6177@intel.com>
Date:   Wed, 19 Apr 2023 16:38:35 +0200
From:   Alexander Lobakin <aleksander.lobakin@...el.com>
To:     Wojciech Drewek <wojciech.drewek@...el.com>
CC:     <intel-wired-lan@...ts.osuosl.org>, <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        <david.m.ertman@...el.com>, <michal.swiatkowski@...ux.intel.com>,
        <marcin.szycik@...ux.intel.com>, <pawel.chmielewski@...el.com>,
        <sridhar.samudrala@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 02/12] ice: Remove exclusion code for RDMA+SRIOV

From: Wojciech Drewek <wojciech.drewek@...el.com>
Date: Mon, 17 Apr 2023 11:34:02 +0200

> From: Dave Ertman <david.m.ertman@...el.com>
> 
> There was a change previously to stop SR-IOV and LAG from existing on the
> same interface.  This was to prevent the violation of LACP (Link
> Aggregation Control Protocol).  The method to achieve this was to add a
> no-op Rx handler onto the netdev when SR-IOV VFs were present, thus
> blocking bonding, bridging, etc from claiming the interface by adding
> its own Rx handler.  Also, when an interface was added into a aggregate,
> then the SR-IOV capability was set to false.

[...]

> diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/ice/ice_lag.h b/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/ice/ice_lag.h
> index 51b5cf467ce2..0bd6b96d7e01 100644
> --- a/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/ice/ice_lag.h
> +++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/ice/ice_lag.h
> @@ -29,59 +29,9 @@ struct ice_lag {
>  	/* each thing blocking bonding will increment this value by one.
>  	 * If this value is zero, then bonding is allowed.
>  	 */

^ this comment block actually belongs to @dis_lag, so it also needs to
be removed.

> -	u16 dis_lag;
>  	u8 role;
>  };
>  
>  int ice_init_lag(struct ice_pf *pf);
>  void ice_deinit_lag(struct ice_pf *pf);
> -rx_handler_result_t ice_lag_nop_handler(struct sk_buff **pskb);
[...]

Thanks,
Olek