netdev - Re: [PATCH v2 03/15] net: rnpgbe: Add basic mbx ops support

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: <942d3782-16af-4b20-9480-9bdf2d6a1222@lunn.ch>
Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2025 15:50:01 +0200
From: Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>
To: Yibo Dong <dong100@...se.com>
Cc: andrew+netdev@...n.ch, davem@...emloft.net, edumazet@...gle.com,
	kuba@...nel.org, pabeni@...hat.com, horms@...nel.org,
	corbet@....net, gur.stavi@...wei.com, maddy@...ux.ibm.com,
	mpe@...erman.id.au, danishanwar@...com, lee@...ger.us,
	gongfan1@...wei.com, lorenzo@...nel.org, geert+renesas@...der.be,
	Parthiban.Veerasooran@...rochip.com, lukas.bulwahn@...hat.com,
	alexanderduyck@...com, richardcochran@...il.com,
	netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 03/15] net: rnpgbe: Add basic mbx ops support

On Tue, Jul 22, 2025 at 02:45:30PM +0800, Yibo Dong wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 21, 2025 at 05:43:41PM +0200, Andrew Lunn wrote:
> > >  #define MAX_VF_NUM (8)
> > 
> > > +	hw->max_vfs = 7;
> > 
> > ???
> 
> This is mistake, max vfs is 7. 8 is '7 vfs + 1 pf'.

So it seems like you need to add a new #define for MAX_FUNCS_NUM, and
set MAX_VF_NUM to 7. And then actually use MAX_VP_NUM. When reviewing
your own code, seeing the number 7, not a define, should of been a
warning, something is wrong....

> > > +static int mucse_obtain_mbx_lock_pf(struct mucse_hw *hw, enum MBX_ID mbx_id)
> > > +{
> > > +	struct mucse_mbx_info *mbx = &hw->mbx;
> > > +	int try_cnt = 5000, ret;
> > > +	u32 reg;
> > > +
> > > +	reg = (mbx_id == MBX_FW) ? PF2FW_MBOX_CTRL(mbx) :
> > > +				   PF2VF_MBOX_CTRL(mbx, mbx_id);
> > > +	while (try_cnt-- > 0) {
> > > +		/* Take ownership of the buffer */
> > > +		mbx_wr32(hw, reg, MBOX_PF_HOLD);
> > > +		/* force write back before check */
> > > +		wmb();
> > > +		if (mbx_rd32(hw, reg) & MBOX_PF_HOLD)
> > > +			return 0;
> > > +		udelay(100);
> > > +	}
> > > +	return ret;
> > 
> > I've not compiled this, but isn't ret uninitialized here? I would also
> > expect it to return -ETIMEDOUT?
> > 
> > 	Andrew
> > 
> 
> Yes, ret is uninitialized. I will fix this.

Did the compiler give a warning? Code should be warning free. We also
expect networking code to be W=1 warning free.

	Andrew