netdev - RE: [Intel-wired-lan] [iwl-next v1] ice: add recipe priority check in search

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: <PH0PR11MB50132ACC6DC931D072512C31964E2@PH0PR11MB5013.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2024 07:54:39 +0000
From: "Buvaneswaran, Sujai" <sujai.buvaneswaran@...el.com>
To: Michal Swiatkowski <michal.swiatkowski@...ux.intel.com>,
	"intel-wired-lan@...ts.osuosl.org" <intel-wired-lan@...ts.osuosl.org>
CC: "netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, "Szycik, Marcin"
	<marcin.szycik@...el.com>, "Kitszel, Przemyslaw"
	<przemyslaw.kitszel@...el.com>
Subject: RE: [Intel-wired-lan] [iwl-next v1] ice: add recipe priority check in
 search

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Intel-wired-lan <intel-wired-lan-bounces@...osl.org> On Behalf Of
> Michal Swiatkowski
> Sent: Friday, October 11, 2024 12:33 PM
> To: intel-wired-lan@...ts.osuosl.org
> Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org; Szycik, Marcin <marcin.szycik@...el.com>;
> Kitszel, Przemyslaw <przemyslaw.kitszel@...el.com>
> Subject: [Intel-wired-lan] [iwl-next v1] ice: add recipe priority check in search
> 
> The new recipe should be added even if exactly the same recipe already
> exists with different priority.
> 
> Example use case is when the rule is being added from TC tool context.
> It should has the highest priority, but if the recipe already exists the rule will
> inherit it priority. It can lead to the situation when the rule added from TC
> tool has lower priority than expected.
> 
> The solution is to check the recipe priority when trying to find existing one.
> 
> Previous recipe is still useful. Example:
> RID 8 -> priority 4
> RID 10 -> priority 7
> 
> The difference is only in priority rest is let's say eth + mac + direction.
> 
> Adding ARP + MAC_A + RX on RID 8, forward to VF0_VSI After that IP +
> MAC_B + RX on RID 10 (from TC tool), forward to PF0
> 
> Both will work.
> 
> In case of adding ARP + MAC_A + RX on RID 8, forward to VF0_VSI ARP +
> MAC_A + RX on RID 10, forward to PF0.
> 
> Only second one will match, but this is expected.
> 
> Reviewed-by: Marcin Szycik <marcin.szycik@...ux.intel.com>
> Reviewed-by: Przemek Kitszel <przemyslaw.kitszel@...el.com>
> Signed-off-by: Michal Swiatkowski <michal.swiatkowski@...ux.intel.com>
> ---
>  drivers/net/ethernet/intel/ice/ice_switch.c | 3 ++-
>  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 

Hi,

System hang is observed when creating the VFs in Switchdev mode with the latest next-queue kernel. Need to powercycle the server to recover the system.
This issue is blocking the validation of this patch.

Thanks,
Sujai B