netdev - [net PATCH v2] octeontx2-pf: Fix ntuple rule creation to direct packet to VF with higher Rx queue than its PF

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-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20231121165624.3664182-1-sumang@marvell.com>
Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2023 22:26:24 +0530
From: Suman Ghosh <sumang@...vell.com>
To: <sgoutham@...vell.com>, <gakula@...vell.com>, <sbhatta@...vell.com>,
        <hkelam@...vell.com>, <lcherian@...vell.com>, <jerinj@...vell.com>,
        <davem@...emloft.net>, <edumazet@...gle.com>, <kuba@...nel.org>,
        <pabeni@...hat.com>, <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <horms@...nel.org>,
        <wojciech.drewek@...el.com>
CC: Suman Ghosh <sumang@...vell.com>
Subject: [net PATCH v2] octeontx2-pf: Fix ntuple rule creation to direct packet to VF with higher Rx queue than its PF

It is possible to add a ntuple rule which would like to direct packet to
a VF whose number of queues are greater/less than its PF's queue numbers.
For example a PF can have 2 Rx queues but a VF created on that PF can have
8 Rx queues. As of today, ntuple rule will reject rule because it is
checking the requested queue number against PF's number of Rx queues.
As a part of this fix if the action of a ntuple rule is to move a packet
to a VF's queue then the check is removed. Also, a debug information is
printed to aware user that it is user's responsibility to cross check if
the requested queue number on that VF is a valid one.

Fixes: f0a1913f8a6f ("octeontx2-pf: Add support for ethtool ntuple filters")
Signed-off-by: Suman Ghosh <sumang@...vell.com>
---
v2 changes:
- Removed 'goto' and added the new condition to existing if check.

 .../marvell/octeontx2/nic/otx2_flows.c        | 20 ++++++++++++++++++-
 1 file changed, 19 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/marvell/octeontx2/nic/otx2_flows.c b/drivers/net/ethernet/marvell/octeontx2/nic/otx2_flows.c
index 4762dbea64a1..97a71e9b8563 100644
--- a/drivers/net/ethernet/marvell/octeontx2/nic/otx2_flows.c
+++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/marvell/octeontx2/nic/otx2_flows.c
@@ -1088,6 +1088,7 @@ int otx2_add_flow(struct otx2_nic *pfvf, struct ethtool_rxnfc *nfc)
 	struct ethhdr *eth_hdr;
 	bool new = false;
 	int err = 0;
+	u64 vf_num;
 	u32 ring;
 
 	if (!flow_cfg->max_flows) {
@@ -1100,7 +1101,21 @@ int otx2_add_flow(struct otx2_nic *pfvf, struct ethtool_rxnfc *nfc)
 	if (!(pfvf->flags & OTX2_FLAG_NTUPLE_SUPPORT))
 		return -ENOMEM;
 
-	if (ring >= pfvf->hw.rx_queues && fsp->ring_cookie != RX_CLS_FLOW_DISC)
+	/* Number of queues on a VF can be greater or less than
+	 * the PF's queue. Hence no need to check for the
+	 * queue count. Hence no need to check queue count if PF
+	 * is installing for its VF. Below is the expected vf_num value
+	 * based on the ethtool commands.
+	 *
+	 * e.g.
+	 * 1. ethtool -U <netdev> ... action -1  ==> vf_num:255
+	 * 2. ethtool -U <netdev> ... action <queue_num>  ==> vf_num:0
+	 * 3. ethtool -U <netdev> ... vf <vf_idx> queue <queue_num>  ==>
+	 *    vf_num:vf_idx+1
+	 */
+	vf_num = ethtool_get_flow_spec_ring_vf(fsp->ring_cookie);
+	if (!is_otx2_vf(pfvf->pcifunc) && !vf_num &&
+	    ring >= pfvf->hw.rx_queues && fsp->ring_cookie != RX_CLS_FLOW_DISC)
 		return -EINVAL;
 
 	if (fsp->location >= otx2_get_maxflows(flow_cfg))
@@ -1182,6 +1197,9 @@ int otx2_add_flow(struct otx2_nic *pfvf, struct ethtool_rxnfc *nfc)
 		flow_cfg->nr_flows++;
 	}
 
+	if (flow->is_vf)
+		netdev_info(pfvf->netdev,
+			    "Make sure that VF's queue number is within its queue limit\n");
 	return 0;
 }
 
-- 
2.25.1