[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <ZEVtwNsM+/VLWp6G@corigine.com>
Date: Sun, 23 Apr 2023 19:41:20 +0200
From: Simon Horman <simon.horman@...igine.com>
To: Dima Chumak <dchumak@...dia.com>
Cc: "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>,
Leon Romanovsky <leon@...nel.org>,
Saeed Mahameed <saeedm@...dia.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next V2 2/4] net/mlx5: Implement devlink port
function cmds to control ipsec_crypto
On Fri, Apr 21, 2023 at 01:48:59PM +0300, Dima Chumak wrote:
> Implement devlink port function commands to enable / disable IPsec
> crypto offloads. This is used to control the IPsec capability of the
> device.
>
> When ipsec_crypto is enabled for a VF, it prevents adding IPsec crypto
> offloads on the PF, because the two cannot be active simultaneously due
> to HW constraints. Conversely, if there are any active IPsec crypto
> offloads on the PF, it's not allowed to enable ipsec_crypto on a VF,
> until PF IPsec offloads are cleared.
>
> Signed-off-by: Dima Chumak <dchumak@...dia.com>
Hi Dima,
I noticed a few issues in error handling, mostly flagged by smatch.
> @@ -622,6 +624,7 @@ static int mlx5e_xfrm_add_state(struct xfrm_state *x,
> struct mlx5e_ipsec_sa_entry *sa_entry = NULL;
> struct net_device *netdev = x->xso.real_dev;
> struct mlx5e_ipsec *ipsec;
> + struct mlx5_eswitch *esw;
> struct mlx5e_priv *priv;
> gfp_t gfp;
> int err;
> @@ -646,6 +649,11 @@ static int mlx5e_xfrm_add_state(struct xfrm_state *x,
> if (err)
> goto err_xfrm;
goto err_xfrm will now result in a call to
mlx5_eswitch_ipsec_offloads_count_dec().
But mlx5_eswitch_ipsec_offloads_count_inc is not called
until a few lines below.
This seems inconsistent to me.
>
> + esw = priv->mdev->priv.eswitch;
> + if (esw && mlx5_esw_vport_ipsec_offload_enabled(esw))
> + return -EBUSY;
I think a goto is needed here in order to unwind correctly.
> + mlx5_eswitch_ipsec_offloads_count_inc(priv->mdev);
> +
> /* check esn */
> if (x->props.flags & XFRM_STATE_ESN)
> mlx5e_ipsec_update_esn_state(sa_entry);
> @@ -711,6 +719,7 @@ static int mlx5e_xfrm_add_state(struct xfrm_state *x,
> kfree(sa_entry->work->data);
> kfree(sa_entry->work);
> err_xfrm:
> + mlx5_eswitch_ipsec_offloads_count_dec(priv->mdev);
> kfree(sa_entry);
> NL_SET_ERR_MSG_MOD(extack, "Device failed to offload this policy");
> return err;
> @@ -734,6 +743,7 @@ static void mlx5e_xfrm_del_state(struct xfrm_state *x)
> /* Make sure that no ARP requests are running in parallel */
> flush_workqueue(ipsec->wq);
>
> + mlx5_eswitch_ipsec_offloads_count_dec(ipsec->mdev);
> }
>
> static void mlx5e_xfrm_free_state(struct xfrm_state *x)
> @@ -1007,6 +1017,7 @@ static int mlx5e_xfrm_add_policy(struct xfrm_policy *x,
> {
> struct net_device *netdev = x->xdo.real_dev;
> struct mlx5e_ipsec_pol_entry *pol_entry;
> + struct mlx5_eswitch *esw;
> struct mlx5e_priv *priv;
> int err;
>
> @@ -1027,6 +1038,11 @@ static int mlx5e_xfrm_add_policy(struct xfrm_policy *x,
> pol_entry->x = x;
> pol_entry->ipsec = priv->ipsec;
>
> + esw = priv->mdev->priv.eswitch;
> + if (esw && mlx5_esw_vport_ipsec_offload_enabled(esw))
> + return -EBUSY;
I think this leaks pol_entry.
> + mlx5_eswitch_ipsec_offloads_count_inc(priv->mdev);
> +
> mlx5e_ipsec_build_accel_pol_attrs(pol_entry, &pol_entry->attrs);
> err = mlx5e_accel_ipsec_fs_add_pol(pol_entry);
> if (err)
...
Powered by blists - more mailing lists