It is possible to add a ntuple rule which would like to direct packet to
a VF whose number of queues are greater/less than its PF's queue numbers.
For example a PF can have 2 Rx queues but a VF created on that PF can have
8 Rx queues. As of today, ntuple rule will reject rule because it is
checking the requested queue number against PF's number of Rx queues.
As a part of this fix if the action of a ntuple rule is to move a packet
to a VF's queue then the check is removed. Also, a debug information is
printed to aware user that it is user's responsibility to cross check if
the requested queue number on that VF is a valid one.
Fixes: f0a1913f8a6f ("octeontx2-pf: Add support for ethtool ntuple filters")
Signed-off-by: Suman Ghosh <[email protected]>
---
.../marvell/octeontx2/nic/otx2_flows.c | 21 +++++++++++++++++++
1 file changed, 21 insertions(+)
diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/marvell/octeontx2/nic/otx2_flows.c b/drivers/net/ethernet/marvell/octeontx2/nic/otx2_flows.c
index 4762dbea64a1..4200f2d387f6 100644
--- a/drivers/net/ethernet/marvell/octeontx2/nic/otx2_flows.c
+++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/marvell/octeontx2/nic/otx2_flows.c
@@ -1088,6 +1088,7 @@ int otx2_add_flow(struct otx2_nic *pfvf, struct ethtool_rxnfc *nfc)
struct ethhdr *eth_hdr;
bool new = false;
int err = 0;
+ u64 vf_num;
u32 ring;
if (!flow_cfg->max_flows) {
@@ -1100,9 +1101,26 @@ int otx2_add_flow(struct otx2_nic *pfvf, struct ethtool_rxnfc *nfc)
if (!(pfvf->flags & OTX2_FLAG_NTUPLE_SUPPORT))
return -ENOMEM;
+ /* Number of queues on a VF can be greater or less than
+ * the PF's queue. Hence no need to check for the
+ * queue count. Hence no need to check queue count if PF
+ * is installing for its VF. Below is the expected vf_num value
+ * based on the ethtool commands.
+ *
+ * e.g.
+ * 1. ethtool -U <netdev> ... action -1 ==> vf_num:255
+ * 2. ethtool -U <netdev> ... action <queue_num> ==> vf_num:0
+ * 3. ethtool -U <netdev> ... vf <vf_idx> queue <queue_num> ==>
+ * vf_num:vf_idx+1
+ */
+ vf_num = ethtool_get_flow_spec_ring_vf(fsp->ring_cookie);
+ if (!is_otx2_vf(pfvf->pcifunc) && vf_num)
+ goto bypass_queue_check;
+
if (ring >= pfvf->hw.rx_queues && fsp->ring_cookie != RX_CLS_FLOW_DISC)
return -EINVAL;
+bypass_queue_check:
if (fsp->location >= otx2_get_maxflows(flow_cfg))
return -EINVAL;
@@ -1182,6 +1200,9 @@ int otx2_add_flow(struct otx2_nic *pfvf, struct ethtool_rxnfc *nfc)
flow_cfg->nr_flows++;
}
+ if (flow->is_vf)
+ netdev_info(pfvf->netdev,
+ "Make sure that VF's queue number is within its queue limit\n");
return 0;
}
--
2.25.1
On 20.11.2023 06:51, Suman Ghosh wrote:
> It is possible to add a ntuple rule which would like to direct packet to
> a VF whose number of queues are greater/less than its PF's queue numbers.
> For example a PF can have 2 Rx queues but a VF created on that PF can have
> 8 Rx queues. As of today, ntuple rule will reject rule because it is
> checking the requested queue number against PF's number of Rx queues.
> As a part of this fix if the action of a ntuple rule is to move a packet
> to a VF's queue then the check is removed. Also, a debug information is
> printed to aware user that it is user's responsibility to cross check if
> the requested queue number on that VF is a valid one.
>
> Fixes: f0a1913f8a6f ("octeontx2-pf: Add support for ethtool ntuple filters")
> Signed-off-by: Suman Ghosh <[email protected]>
> ---
> .../marvell/octeontx2/nic/otx2_flows.c | 21 +++++++++++++++++++
> 1 file changed, 21 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/marvell/octeontx2/nic/otx2_flows.c b/drivers/net/ethernet/marvell/octeontx2/nic/otx2_flows.c
> index 4762dbea64a1..4200f2d387f6 100644
> --- a/drivers/net/ethernet/marvell/octeontx2/nic/otx2_flows.c
> +++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/marvell/octeontx2/nic/otx2_flows.c
> @@ -1088,6 +1088,7 @@ int otx2_add_flow(struct otx2_nic *pfvf, struct ethtool_rxnfc *nfc)
> struct ethhdr *eth_hdr;
> bool new = false;
> int err = 0;
> + u64 vf_num;
> u32 ring;
>
> if (!flow_cfg->max_flows) {
> @@ -1100,9 +1101,26 @@ int otx2_add_flow(struct otx2_nic *pfvf, struct ethtool_rxnfc *nfc)
> if (!(pfvf->flags & OTX2_FLAG_NTUPLE_SUPPORT))
> return -ENOMEM;
>
> + /* Number of queues on a VF can be greater or less than
> + * the PF's queue. Hence no need to check for the
> + * queue count. Hence no need to check queue count if PF
> + * is installing for its VF. Below is the expected vf_num value
> + * based on the ethtool commands.
> + *
> + * e.g.
> + * 1. ethtool -U <netdev> ... action -1 ==> vf_num:255
> + * 2. ethtool -U <netdev> ... action <queue_num> ==> vf_num:0
> + * 3. ethtool -U <netdev> ... vf <vf_idx> queue <queue_num> ==>
> + * vf_num:vf_idx+1
> + */
> + vf_num = ethtool_get_flow_spec_ring_vf(fsp->ring_cookie);
> + if (!is_otx2_vf(pfvf->pcifunc) && vf_num)
> + goto bypass_queue_check;
Let's just add this condition to the next if, no need for goto.
> +
> if (ring >= pfvf->hw.rx_queues && fsp->ring_cookie != RX_CLS_FLOW_DISC)
> return -EINVAL;
>
> +bypass_queue_check:
> if (fsp->location >= otx2_get_maxflows(flow_cfg))
> return -EINVAL;
>
> @@ -1182,6 +1200,9 @@ int otx2_add_flow(struct otx2_nic *pfvf, struct ethtool_rxnfc *nfc)
> flow_cfg->nr_flows++;
> }
>
> + if (flow->is_vf)
> + netdev_info(pfvf->netdev,
> + "Make sure that VF's queue number is within its queue limit\n");
> return 0;
> }
>
>> Signed-off-by: Suman Ghosh <[email protected]>
>> ---
>> .../marvell/octeontx2/nic/otx2_flows.c | 21
>+++++++++++++++++++
>> 1 file changed, 21 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/marvell/octeontx2/nic/otx2_flows.c
>> b/drivers/net/ethernet/marvell/octeontx2/nic/otx2_flows.c
>> index 4762dbea64a1..4200f2d387f6 100644
>> --- a/drivers/net/ethernet/marvell/octeontx2/nic/otx2_flows.c
>> +++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/marvell/octeontx2/nic/otx2_flows.c
>> @@ -1088,6 +1088,7 @@ int otx2_add_flow(struct otx2_nic *pfvf, struct
>ethtool_rxnfc *nfc)
>> struct ethhdr *eth_hdr;
>> bool new = false;
>> int err = 0;
>> + u64 vf_num;
>> u32 ring;
>>
>> if (!flow_cfg->max_flows) {
>> @@ -1100,9 +1101,26 @@ int otx2_add_flow(struct otx2_nic *pfvf, struct
>ethtool_rxnfc *nfc)
>> if (!(pfvf->flags & OTX2_FLAG_NTUPLE_SUPPORT))
>> return -ENOMEM;
>>
>> + /* Number of queues on a VF can be greater or less than
>> + * the PF's queue. Hence no need to check for the
>> + * queue count. Hence no need to check queue count if PF
>> + * is installing for its VF. Below is the expected vf_num value
>> + * based on the ethtool commands.
>> + *
>> + * e.g.
>> + * 1. ethtool -U <netdev> ... action -1 ==> vf_num:255
>> + * 2. ethtool -U <netdev> ... action <queue_num> ==> vf_num:0
>> + * 3. ethtool -U <netdev> ... vf <vf_idx> queue <queue_num> ==>
>> + * vf_num:vf_idx+1
>> + */
>> + vf_num = ethtool_get_flow_spec_ring_vf(fsp->ring_cookie);
>> + if (!is_otx2_vf(pfvf->pcifunc) && vf_num)
>> + goto bypass_queue_check;
>
>Let's just add this condition to the next if, no need for goto.
[Suman] I kept it a separate check to make the code more readable. Otherwise the next if condition will be complicated.
>
>> +
>> if (ring >= pfvf->hw.rx_queues && fsp->ring_cookie !=
>RX_CLS_FLOW_DISC)
>> return -EINVAL;
>>
>> +bypass_queue_check:
>> if (fsp->location >= otx2_get_maxflows(flow_cfg))
>> return -EINVAL;
>>
>> @@ -1182,6 +1200,9 @@ int otx2_add_flow(struct otx2_nic *pfvf, struct
>ethtool_rxnfc *nfc)
>> flow_cfg->nr_flows++;
>> }
>>
>> + if (flow->is_vf)
>> + netdev_info(pfvf->netdev,
>> + "Make sure that VF's queue number is within its queue
>> +limit\n");
>> return 0;
>> }
>>
On Tue, Nov 21, 2023 at 09:54:00AM +0000, Suman Ghosh wrote:
> >> Signed-off-by: Suman Ghosh <[email protected]>
> >> ---
> >> .../marvell/octeontx2/nic/otx2_flows.c | 21
> >+++++++++++++++++++
> >> 1 file changed, 21 insertions(+)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/marvell/octeontx2/nic/otx2_flows.c
> >> b/drivers/net/ethernet/marvell/octeontx2/nic/otx2_flows.c
> >> index 4762dbea64a1..4200f2d387f6 100644
> >> --- a/drivers/net/ethernet/marvell/octeontx2/nic/otx2_flows.c
> >> +++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/marvell/octeontx2/nic/otx2_flows.c
> >> @@ -1088,6 +1088,7 @@ int otx2_add_flow(struct otx2_nic *pfvf, struct
> >ethtool_rxnfc *nfc)
> >> struct ethhdr *eth_hdr;
> >> bool new = false;
> >> int err = 0;
> >> + u64 vf_num;
> >> u32 ring;
> >>
> >> if (!flow_cfg->max_flows) {
> >> @@ -1100,9 +1101,26 @@ int otx2_add_flow(struct otx2_nic *pfvf, struct
> >ethtool_rxnfc *nfc)
> >> if (!(pfvf->flags & OTX2_FLAG_NTUPLE_SUPPORT))
> >> return -ENOMEM;
> >>
> >> + /* Number of queues on a VF can be greater or less than
> >> + * the PF's queue. Hence no need to check for the
> >> + * queue count. Hence no need to check queue count if PF
> >> + * is installing for its VF. Below is the expected vf_num value
> >> + * based on the ethtool commands.
> >> + *
> >> + * e.g.
> >> + * 1. ethtool -U <netdev> ... action -1 ==> vf_num:255
> >> + * 2. ethtool -U <netdev> ... action <queue_num> ==> vf_num:0
> >> + * 3. ethtool -U <netdev> ... vf <vf_idx> queue <queue_num> ==>
> >> + * vf_num:vf_idx+1
> >> + */
> >> + vf_num = ethtool_get_flow_spec_ring_vf(fsp->ring_cookie);
> >> + if (!is_otx2_vf(pfvf->pcifunc) && vf_num)
> >> + goto bypass_queue_check;
> >
> >Let's just add this condition to the next if, no need for goto.
> [Suman] I kept it a separate check to make the code more readable. Otherwise the next if condition will be complicated.
Readability is subjective, but, FWIIW, I'd also prefer
to avoid a goto here.
> >> +
> >> if (ring >= pfvf->hw.rx_queues && fsp->ring_cookie !=
> >RX_CLS_FLOW_DISC)
> >> return -EINVAL;
> >>
> >> +bypass_queue_check:
> >> if (fsp->location >= otx2_get_maxflows(flow_cfg))
> >> return -EINVAL;
> >>
> >> @@ -1182,6 +1200,9 @@ int otx2_add_flow(struct otx2_nic *pfvf, struct
> >ethtool_rxnfc *nfc)
> >> flow_cfg->nr_flows++;
> >> }
> >>
> >> + if (flow->is_vf)
> >> + netdev_info(pfvf->netdev,
> >> + "Make sure that VF's queue number is within its queue
> >> +limit\n");
> >> return 0;
> >> }
> >>
>> >ethtool_rxnfc *nfc)
>> >> struct ethhdr *eth_hdr;
>> >> bool new = false;
>> >> int err = 0;
>> >> + u64 vf_num;
>> >> u32 ring;
>> >>
>> >> if (!flow_cfg->max_flows) {
>> >> @@ -1100,9 +1101,26 @@ int otx2_add_flow(struct otx2_nic *pfvf,
>> >> struct
>> >ethtool_rxnfc *nfc)
>> >> if (!(pfvf->flags & OTX2_FLAG_NTUPLE_SUPPORT))
>> >> return -ENOMEM;
>> >>
>> >> + /* Number of queues on a VF can be greater or less than
>> >> + * the PF's queue. Hence no need to check for the
>> >> + * queue count. Hence no need to check queue count if PF
>> >> + * is installing for its VF. Below is the expected vf_num
>value
>> >> + * based on the ethtool commands.
>> >> + *
>> >> + * e.g.
>> >> + * 1. ethtool -U <netdev> ... action -1 ==> vf_num:255
>> >> + * 2. ethtool -U <netdev> ... action <queue_num> ==> vf_num:0
>> >> + * 3. ethtool -U <netdev> ... vf <vf_idx> queue <queue_num>
>==>
>> >> + * vf_num:vf_idx+1
>> >> + */
>> >> + vf_num = ethtool_get_flow_spec_ring_vf(fsp->ring_cookie);
>> >> + if (!is_otx2_vf(pfvf->pcifunc) && vf_num)
>> >> + goto bypass_queue_check;
>> >
>> >Let's just add this condition to the next if, no need for goto.
>> [Suman] I kept it a separate check to make the code more readable.
>Otherwise the next if condition will be complicated.
>
>Readability is subjective, but, FWIIW, I'd also prefer to avoid a goto
>here.
[Suman] Okay. Since both of you are suggesting the same change, I will update the same in v2.
>
>> >> +
>> >> if (ring >= pfvf->hw.rx_queues && fsp->ring_cookie !=
>> >RX_CLS_FLOW_DISC)
>> >> return -EINVAL;
>> >>
>> >> +bypass_queue_check:
>> >> if (fsp->location >= otx2_get_maxflows(flow_cfg))
>> >> return -EINVAL;
>> >>
>> >> @@ -1182,6 +1200,9 @@ int otx2_add_flow(struct otx2_nic *pfvf,
>> >> struct
>> >ethtool_rxnfc *nfc)
>> >> flow_cfg->nr_flows++;
>> >> }
>> >>
>> >> + if (flow->is_vf)
>> >> + netdev_info(pfvf->netdev,
>> >> + "Make sure that VF's queue number is within its
>queue
>> >> +limit\n");
>> >> return 0;
>> >> }
>> >>