netdev - RE: [PATCH net] net: enetc: prevent VF from configuring preemptiable TCs

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]

Message-ID:
 <PAXPR04MB8510000CA1367272180F602488512@PAXPR04MB8510.eurprd04.prod.outlook.com>
Date: Mon, 4 Nov 2024 01:45:29 +0000
From: Wei Fang <wei.fang@....com>
To: Vladimir Oltean <vladimir.oltean@....com>
CC: "davem@...emloft.net" <davem@...emloft.net>, "edumazet@...gle.com"
	<edumazet@...gle.com>, "kuba@...nel.org" <kuba@...nel.org>,
	"pabeni@...hat.com" <pabeni@...hat.com>, "andrew+netdev@...n.ch"
	<andrew+netdev@...n.ch>, Claudiu Manoil <claudiu.manoil@....com>,
	"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"imx@...ts.linux.dev" <imx@...ts.linux.dev>
Subject: RE: [PATCH net] net: enetc: prevent VF from configuring preemptiable
 TCs

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Vladimir Oltean <vladimir.oltean@....com>
> Sent: 2024年11月1日 22:03
> To: Wei Fang <wei.fang@....com>
> Cc: davem@...emloft.net; edumazet@...gle.com; kuba@...nel.org;
> pabeni@...hat.com; andrew+netdev@...n.ch; Claudiu Manoil
> <claudiu.manoil@....com>; netdev@...r.kernel.org;
> linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org; imx@...ts.linux.dev
> Subject: Re: [PATCH net] net: enetc: prevent VF from configuring preemptiable
> TCs
> 
> On Fri, Nov 01, 2024 at 01:55:19PM +0200, Vladimir Oltean wrote:
> > On Thu, Oct 31, 2024 at 05:46:47AM +0200, Wei Fang wrote:
> > > > > Actually please do this instead:
> > > > >
> > > > > 	if (!(si->hw_features & ENETC_SI_F_QBU))
> > > > >
> > >
> > > Actually, VFs of eno0 have ENETC_SI_F_QBU bit set. So we should use the
> > > following check instead.
> > >
> > > if (!enetc_si_is_pf(si) || !(si->hw_features & ENETC_SI_F_QBU))
> > >
> > > Or we only set ENETC_SI_F_QBU bit for PF in enetc_get_si_caps() if the PF
> > > supports 802.1 Qbu.
> >
> > This one is weird. I don't know why the ENETC would push a capability in
> > the SI port capability register 0 for the VSI, if the VSI doesn't have
> > access to the port registers in the first place. Let me ask internally,
> > so we could figure out what's the best thing to do.
> 
> Let's mask the ENETC_SI_F_QBU feature for VSIs in enetc_get_si_caps().
> Though we should do the same with ENETC_SIPCAPR0_QBV and
> ENETC_SIPCAPR0_PSFP.

Yes, I agree with you, for QBV and PSFP, I think we'd better to use a separate
patch to clear these two bits for VFs, and the target of the patch will be net-next
tree, because the related interfaces of these two features are not accessed by
VFs, so there are no notable and visible issues at present.