Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CACKFLini64_5N7aVtPAVH3CBYCSsdHAJv35jimR18PJXeV6j5g@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20180724052454.21524-1-yuehaibing@huawei.com> <CACKFLini64_5N7aVtPAVH3CBYCSsdHAJv35jimR18PJXeV6j5g@mail.gmail.com>
From:   Vasundhara Volam <vasundhara-v.volam@broadcom.com>
Date:   Tue, 24 Jul 2018 21:31:29 +0530
Message-ID: <CAACQVJrS9_fCNG3g51q7kZnTt5wy1X-SrvXTsFq=zqZEUvVS5Q@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next] bnxt_en: Fix logic of forward the VF MAC address
 to PF in bnxt_vf_validate_set_mac
To:     Michael Chan <michael.chan@broadcom.com>
Cc:     YueHaibing <yuehaibing@huawei.com>,
        David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>,
        open list <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Netdev <netdev@vger.kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, Jul 24, 2018 at 1:01 PM, Michael Chan <michael.chan@broadcom.com> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jul 23, 2018 at 10:24 PM, YueHaibing <yuehaibing@huawei.com> wrote:
> > Based on the comments,req->l2addr must match the VF MAC address
> > if firmware spec >= 1.2.2, mac_ok can be true.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: YueHaibing <yuehaibing@huawei.com>
> > ---
> >  drivers/net/ethernet/broadcom/bnxt/bnxt_sriov.c | 7 ++-----
> >  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/broadcom/bnxt/bnxt_sriov.c b/drivers/net/ethernet/broadcom/bnxt/bnxt_sriov.c
> > index a649108..7925964 100644
> > --- a/drivers/net/ethernet/broadcom/bnxt/bnxt_sriov.c
> > +++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/broadcom/bnxt/bnxt_sriov.c
> > @@ -954,12 +954,9 @@ static int bnxt_vf_validate_set_mac(struct bnxt *bp, struct bnxt_vf_info *vf)
> >                 if (ether_addr_equal((const u8 *)req->l2_addr, vf->mac_addr))
> >                         mac_ok = true;
> >         } else if (is_valid_ether_addr(vf->vf_mac_addr)) {
> > -               if (ether_addr_equal((const u8 *)req->l2_addr, vf->vf_mac_addr))
> > +               if (ether_addr_equal((const u8 *)req->l2_addr, vf->vf_mac_addr) &&
> > +                   bp->hwrm_spec_code >= 0x10202)
> >                         mac_ok = true;
>
> I'm not sure if this is correct.  If firmware spec < 0x10202, the VF
> MAC address is not forwarded to the PF and so it doesn't have to match
> and mac_ok should still be true.  I think we are missing that
> condition with this patch.
>
> I need to let my colleague Vasundhara comment on this.  She is more
> familiar with this logic.
Yes Michael, you are right. Also, the plain else condition is to cover
a special case to allow VF to modify
it's own MAC when PF has not assigned a valid MAC address and HWRM
spec code > 0x10202.
>
> > -       } else if (bp->hwrm_spec_code < 0x10202) {
> > -               mac_ok = true;
> > -       } else {
> > -               mac_ok = true;
> >         }
> >         if (mac_ok)
> >                 return bnxt_hwrm_exec_fwd_resp(bp, vf, msg_size);
> > --
> > 2.7.0
> >
> >