[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20250215193102.GV1615191@kernel.org>
Date: Sat, 15 Feb 2025 19:31:02 +0000
From: Simon Horman <horms@...nel.org>
To: Marcin Szycik <marcin.szycik@...ux.intel.com>
Cc: intel-wired-lan@...ts.osuosl.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
michal.swiatkowski@...ux.intel.com,
Sujai Buvaneswaran <sujai.buvaneswaran@...el.com>,
Martyna Szapar-Mudlaw <martyna.szapar-mudlaw@...ux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH iwl-net 1/2] ice: Fix deinitializing VF in error path
On Thu, Feb 13, 2025 at 01:32:38PM +0100, Marcin Szycik wrote:
>
>
> On 13.02.2025 11:55, Simon Horman wrote:
> > On Tue, Feb 11, 2025 at 06:43:21PM +0100, Marcin Szycik wrote:
> >> If ice_ena_vfs() fails after calling ice_create_vf_entries(), it frees
> >> all VFs without removing them from snapshot PF-VF mailbox list, leading
> >> to list corruption.
> >>
> >> Reproducer:
> >> devlink dev eswitch set $PF1_PCI mode switchdev
> >> ip l s $PF1 up
> >> ip l s $PF1 promisc on
> >> sleep 1
> >> echo 1 > /sys/class/net/$PF1/device/sriov_numvfs
> >
> > Should the line above be "echo 0" to remove the VFs before creating VFs
> > below (I'm looking at sriov_numvfs_store())?
>
> Both "echo 1" commands fail (I'm fixing it in patch 2/2), that's why there's
> no "echo 0" in between. Also, in this minimal example I'm assuming no VFs
> were initially present.
>
> Thanks for reviewing!
Likewise, thanks for the clarification.
...
Powered by blists - more mailing lists