netdev - Re: [PATCH net 3/3] ice: Fix PF with enabled XDP going no-carrier after reset

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2023 10:05:43 +0100
From: Larysa Zaremba <larysa.zaremba@...el.com>
To: Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>
CC: "Nelson, Shannon" <shannon.nelson@....com>, Tony Nguyen
	<anthony.l.nguyen@...el.com>, <davem@...emloft.net>, <kuba@...nel.org>,
	<edumazet@...gle.com>, <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	<maciej.fijalkowski@...el.com>, <magnus.karlsson@...el.com>,
	<ast@...nel.org>, <daniel@...earbox.net>, <hawk@...nel.org>,
	<john.fastabend@...il.com>, <bpf@...r.kernel.org>, Przemek Kitszel
	<przemyslaw.kitszel@...el.com>, Simon Horman <horms@...nel.org>, "Chandan
 Kumar Rout" <chandanx.rout@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net 3/3] ice: Fix PF with enabled XDP going no-carrier
 after reset

On Thu, Dec 21, 2023 at 08:23:39AM +0100, Paolo Abeni wrote:
> On Wed, 2023-12-20 at 09:04 -0800, Nelson, Shannon wrote:
> > On 12/20/2023 1:23 AM, Larysa Zaremba wrote:
> > > 
> > > On Tue, Dec 19, 2023 at 04:09:09PM -0800, Nelson, Shannon wrote:
> > > > On 12/18/2023 11:27 AM, Tony Nguyen wrote:
> > > > > Caution: This message originated from an External Source. Use proper caution when opening attachments, clicking links, or responding.
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > From: Larysa Zaremba <larysa.zaremba@...el.com>
> > > > > 
> > > > > Commit 6624e780a577fc596788 ("ice: split ice_vsi_setup into smaller
> > > > > functions") has refactored a bunch of code involved in PFR. In this
> > > > > process, TC queue number adjustment for XDP was lost. Bring it back.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Lack of such adjustment causes interface to go into no-carrier after a
> > > > > reset, if XDP program is attached, with the following message:
> > > > > 
> > > > > ice 0000:b1:00.0: Failed to set LAN Tx queue context, error: -22
> > > > > ice 0000:b1:00.0 ens801f0np0: Failed to open VSI 0x0006 on switch 0x0001
> > > > > ice 0000:b1:00.0: enable VSI failed, err -22, VSI index 0, type ICE_VSI_PF
> > > > > ice 0000:b1:00.0: PF VSI rebuild failed: -22
> > > > > ice 0000:b1:00.0: Rebuild failed, unload and reload driver
> > > > > 
> > > > > Fixes: 6624e780a577 ("ice: split ice_vsi_setup into smaller functions")
> > > > > Reviewed-by: Przemek Kitszel <przemyslaw.kitszel@...el.com>
> > > > > Signed-off-by: Larysa Zaremba <larysa.zaremba@...el.com>
> > > > > Reviewed-by: Simon Horman <horms@...nel.org>
> > > > > Tested-by: Chandan Kumar Rout <chandanx.rout@...el.com> (A Contingent Worker at Intel)
> > > > > Signed-off-by: Tony Nguyen <anthony.l.nguyen@...el.com>
> > > > > ---
> > > > >    drivers/net/ethernet/intel/ice/ice_lib.c | 3 +++
> > > > >    1 file changed, 3 insertions(+)
> > > > > 
> > > > > diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/ice/ice_lib.c b/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/ice/ice_lib.c
> > > > > index de7ba87af45d..1bad6e17f9be 100644
> > > > > --- a/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/ice/ice_lib.c
> > > > > +++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/ice/ice_lib.c
> > > > > @@ -2371,6 +2371,9 @@ static int ice_vsi_cfg_tc_lan(struct ice_pf *pf, struct ice_vsi *vsi)
> > > > >                   } else {
> > > > >                           max_txqs[i] = vsi->alloc_txq;
> > > > >                   }
> > > > > +
> > > > > +               if (vsi->type == ICE_VSI_PF)
> > > > > +                       max_txqs[i] += vsi->num_xdp_txq;
> > > > 
> > > > Since this new code is coming right after an existing
> > > >                if (vsi->type == ICE_VSI_CHNL)
> > > > it looks like it would make sense to make it an 'else if' in that last
> > > > block, e.g.:
> > > > 
> > > >                if (vsi->type == ICE_VSI_CHNL) {
> > > >                        if (!vsi->alloc_txq && vsi->num_txq)
> > > >                                max_txqs[i] = vsi->num_txq;
> > > >                        else
> > > >                                max_txqs[i] = pf->num_lan_tx;
> > > >                } else if (vsi->type == ICE_VSI_PF) {
> > > >                        max_txqs[i] += vsi->num_xdp_txq;
> > > 
> > > Would need to be
> > >          max_txqs[i] = vsi->alloc_txq + vsi->num_xdp_txq;
> > > 
> > > >                } else {
> > > >                        max_txqs[i] = vsi->alloc_txq;
> > > >                }
> > > > 
> > > > Of course this begins to verge on the switch/case/default format.
> > > > 
> > > > sln
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > I was going for logic: assign default values first, adjust based on enabled
> > > features (well, a single feature) second. The thing that in my opinion would
> > > make it more clear would be replacing 'vsi->type == ICE_VSI_PF' with
> > > ice_is_xdp_ena_vsi(). Do you think this is worth doing?
> > 
> > Hmm... I made a dumb error in a quick read of the code.  This suggests 
> > that making the intent of the code more clear would be a good idea.  I 
> > think that the ice_is_xdp_ena_vsi() would definitely make it more clear 
> > as opposed to the bare ICE_VCSI_PF.
> 
> I think that the current patch fits well for stable, and the issue
> looks relevant enough that we should prefer have it fixed in this
> cycle. Any refactoring/change would not allow such result due to the
> timing.
> 
> I'll apply the series as-is, please follow-up on net-next as needed (no
> rush).

Ok, thanks a lot.

> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Paolo
>