netdev - Re: [PATCH] net/mlx5e: Again mutually exclude RX-FCS and RX-port-timestamp

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]

Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2023 10:52:40 +0200
From: Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>
To: Tariq Toukan <ttoukan.linux@...il.com>, Will Mortensen
 <will@...rahop.com>,  netdev@...r.kernel.org
Cc: Charlotte Tan <charlotte@...rahop.com>, Adham Faris <afaris@...dia.com>,
  Aya Levin <ayal@...dia.com>, Tariq Toukan <tariqt@...dia.com>, Moshe
 Shemesh <moshe@...dia.com>,  Saeed Mahameed <saeedm@...dia.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] net/mlx5e: Again mutually exclude RX-FCS and
 RX-port-timestamp

On Tue, 2023-10-10 at 09:31 +0300, Tariq Toukan wrote:
> 
> On 06/10/2023 8:37, Will Mortensen wrote:
> > Commit 1e66220948df8 ("net/mlx5e: Update rx ring hw mtu upon each rx-fcs
> > flag change") seems to have accidentally inverted the logic added in
> > commit 0bc73ad46a76 ("net/mlx5e: Mutually exclude RX-FCS and
> > RX-port-timestamp").
> > 
> > The impact of this is a little unclear since it seems the FCS scattered
> > with RX-FCS is (usually?) correct regardless.
> > 
> 
> Thanks for your patch.
> 
> > Fixes: 1e66220948df8 ("net/mlx5e: Update rx ring hw mtu upon each rx-fcs flag change")
> > Tested-by: Charlotte Tan <charlotte@...rahop.com>
> > Reviewed-by: Charlotte Tan <charlotte@...rahop.com>
> > Cc: Adham Faris <afaris@...dia.com>
> > Cc: Aya Levin <ayal@...dia.com>
> > Cc: Tariq Toukan <tariqt@...dia.com>
> > Cc: Moshe Shemesh <moshe@...dia.com>
> > Cc: Saeed Mahameed <saeedm@...dia.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Will Mortensen <will@...rahop.com>
> > ---
> > For what it's worth, regardless of this change the PCMR register behaves
> > unexpectedly in our testing on NICs where rx_ts_over_crc_cap is 1 (i.e.
> > where rx_ts_over_crc is supported), such as ConnectX-7 running firmware
> > 28.37.1014. For example, fcs_chk is always 0, and rx_ts_over_crc can
> > never be set to 1 after being set to 0. On ConnectX-5, where
> > rx_ts_over_crc_cap is 0, fcs_chk behaves as expected.
> > 
> > We'll probably be opening a support case about that after we test more,
> > but I mention it here because it makes FCS-related testing confusing.
> > 
> 
> Please open the case and we'll analyze.
> 
> >   drivers/net/ethernet/mellanox/mlx5/core/en_main.c | 3 ++-
> >   1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/mellanox/mlx5/core/en_main.c b/drivers/net/ethernet/mellanox/mlx5/core/en_main.c
> > index a2ae791538ed..acb40770cf0c 100644
> > --- a/drivers/net/ethernet/mellanox/mlx5/core/en_main.c
> > +++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/mellanox/mlx5/core/en_main.c
> > @@ -3952,13 +3952,14 @@ static int set_feature_rx_fcs(struct net_device *netdev, bool enable)
> >   	struct mlx5e_channels *chs = &priv->channels;
> >   	struct mlx5e_params new_params;
> >   	int err;
> > +	bool rx_ts_over_crc = !enable;
> 
> nit:  Please maintain the reserved Christmas tree.
> 
> >   
> >   	mutex_lock(&priv->state_lock);
> >   
> >   	new_params = chs->params;
> >   	new_params.scatter_fcs_en = enable;
> >   	err = mlx5e_safe_switch_params(priv, &new_params, mlx5e_set_rx_port_ts_wrap,
> > -				       &new_params.scatter_fcs_en, true);
> > +				       &rx_ts_over_crc, true);
> >   	mutex_unlock(&priv->state_lock);
> >   	return err;
> >   }
> 
> Reviewed-by: Tariq Toukan <tariqt@...dia.com>

@Tariq: do you prefer we will take this patch directly, or do you
prefer send it with a later PR?

Thanks,

Paolo