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: <CAACQVJrS9_fCNG3g51q7kZnTt5wy1X-SrvXTsFq=zqZEUvVS5Q@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20180724052454.21524-1-yuehaibing@huawei.com> <CACKFLini64_5N7aVtPAVH3CBYCSsdHAJv35jimR18PJXeV6j5g@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAACQVJrS9_fCNG3g51q7kZnTt5wy1X-SrvXTsFq=zqZEUvVS5Q@mail.gmail.com>
From:   Michael Chan <michael.chan@broadcom.com>
Date:   Tue, 24 Jul 2018 14:48:34 -0700
Message-ID: <CACKFLinjTEnma79YtNG3UVqfc+gzRxXoMttY0tMfSTSPRx8ZyQ@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:     Vasundhara Volam <vasundhara-v.volam@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 9:01 AM, Vasundhara Volam
<vasundhara-v.volam@broadcom.com> wrote:
> 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.

We should combine the "else if" and "else" below into a plain else and
add some comments to explain the conditions.

>>
>> > -       } 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
>> >
>> >