Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0EAD4C6FD20 for ; Tue, 7 Mar 2023 19:41:51 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S230496AbjCGTlt (ORCPT ); Tue, 7 Mar 2023 14:41:49 -0500 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:53316 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S231668AbjCGTlG (ORCPT ); Tue, 7 Mar 2023 14:41:06 -0500 Received: from forwardcorp1a.mail.yandex.net (forwardcorp1a.mail.yandex.net [178.154.239.72]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0FFDB99D68; Tue, 7 Mar 2023 11:28:23 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-nwsmtp-smtp-corp-main-62.vla.yp-c.yandex.net (mail-nwsmtp-smtp-corp-main-62.vla.yp-c.yandex.net [IPv6:2a02:6b8:c0d:3786:0:640:7c97:0]) by forwardcorp1a.mail.yandex.net (Yandex) with ESMTP id 6D9465FD3A; Tue, 7 Mar 2023 22:28:21 +0300 (MSK) Received: from [IPV6:2a02:6b8:b081:b496::1:33] (unknown [2a02:6b8:b081:b496::1:33]) by mail-nwsmtp-smtp-corp-main-62.vla.yp-c.yandex.net (smtpcorp/Yandex) with ESMTPSA id KSh5v10OpqM0-vVMzFkwC; Tue, 07 Mar 2023 22:28:20 +0300 X-Yandex-Fwd: 1 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=yandex-team.ru; s=default; t=1678217300; bh=7jX9ubagGZzzRlvMHYf68n+Y+WerZHDU8LZua8J0rnY=; h=From:In-Reply-To:Cc:Date:References:To:Subject:Message-ID; b=0PgeU9LAn/44F38S6eQyVNopedQXp11W8u9yg1UOTDfBYVY0LF1nglj+oyMglbfXT 6srRj5R5i3b6l2sg9PmfFK2lN0ASFESdwY/3Wll8um7p5qW6KaC3JuaSR+wpOTB2S7 A7o/X9jg5IGpZ3eWNM1btdfDYfpXeBvrFgszr1dI= Authentication-Results: mail-nwsmtp-smtp-corp-main-62.vla.yp-c.yandex.net; dkim=pass header.i=@yandex-team.ru Message-ID: Date: Tue, 7 Mar 2023 22:28:19 +0300 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/102.4.2 Subject: Re: [EXT] Re: [PATCH v0] qed/qed_dev: guard against a possible division by zero To: Manish Chopra , Simon Horman Cc: Ariel Elior , "David S. Miller" , Eric Dumazet , Jakub Kicinski , Paolo Abeni , Yuval Mintz , "netdev@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" References: <20230209103813.2500486-1-d-tatianin@yandex-team.ru> <7f292302-97d0-4d66-31cd-f628d013ef4a@yandex-team.ru> Content-Language: en-US From: Daniil Tatianin In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 3/7/23 8:50 PM, Manish Chopra wrote: >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Daniil Tatianin >> Sent: Friday, March 3, 2023 5:48 PM >> To: Manish Chopra ; Simon Horman >> >> Cc: Ariel Elior ; David S. Miller >> ; Eric Dumazet ; Jakub >> Kicinski ; Paolo Abeni ; Yuval Mintz >> ; netdev@vger.kernel.org; linux- >> kernel@vger.kernel.org >> Subject: Re: [EXT] Re: [PATCH v0] qed/qed_dev: guard against a possible >> division by zero >> >> On 2/16/23 9:42 AM, Daniil Tatianin wrote: >>> On 2/16/23 12:20 AM, Manish Chopra wrote: >>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>> From: Daniil Tatianin >>>>> Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2023 12:53 PM >>>>> To: Simon Horman >>>>> Cc: Ariel Elior ; Manish Chopra >>>>> ; David S. Miller ; Eric >>>>> Dumazet ; Jakub Kicinski ; >>>>> Paolo Abeni ; Yuval Mintz >>>>> ; netdev@vger.kernel.org; >>>>> linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org >>>>> Subject: [EXT] Re: [PATCH v0] qed/qed_dev: guard against a possible >>>>> division by zero >>>>> >>>>> External Email >>>>> >>>>> -------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>> -- >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On 2/9/23 2:13 PM, Simon Horman wrote: >>>>>> On Thu, Feb 09, 2023 at 01:38:13PM +0300, Daniil Tatianin wrote: >>>>>>> Previously we would divide total_left_rate by zero if num_vports >>>>>>> happened to be 1 because non_requested_count is calculated as >>>>>>> num_vports - req_count. Guard against this by explicitly checking >>>>>>> for zero when doing the division. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Found by Linux Verification Center (linuxtesting.org) with the >>>>>>> SVACE static analysis tool. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Fixes: bcd197c81f63 ("qed: Add vport WFQ configuration APIs") >>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Daniil Tatianin >>>>>>> --- >>>>>>>    drivers/net/ethernet/qlogic/qed/qed_dev.c | 2 +- >>>>>>>    1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/qlogic/qed/qed_dev.c >>>>>>> b/drivers/net/ethernet/qlogic/qed/qed_dev.c >>>>>>> index d61cd32ec3b6..90927f68c459 100644 >>>>>>> --- a/drivers/net/ethernet/qlogic/qed/qed_dev.c >>>>>>> +++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/qlogic/qed/qed_dev.c >>>>>>> @@ -5123,7 +5123,7 @@ static int qed_init_wfq_param(struct >>>>>>> qed_hwfn *p_hwfn, >>>>>>> >>>>>>>        total_left_rate    = min_pf_rate - total_req_min_rate; >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -    left_rate_per_vp = total_left_rate / non_requested_count; >>>>>>> +    left_rate_per_vp = total_left_rate / (non_requested_count ?: >>>>>>> +1); >>>>>> >>>>>> I don't know if num_vports can be 1. >>>>>> But if it is then I agree that the above will be a divide by zero. >>>>>> >>>>>> I do, however, wonder if it would be better to either: >>>>>> >>>>>> * Treat this case as invalid and return with -EINVAL if num_vports >>>>>> is 1; or >>>>> I think that's a good idea considering num_vports == 1 is indeed an >>>>> invalid value. >>>>> I'd like to hear a maintainer's opinion on this. >>>> Practically, this flow will only hit with presence of SR-IOV VFs. In >>>> that case it's always expected to have num_vports > 1. >>> >>> In that case, should we add a check and return with -EINVAL otherwise? >>> Thank you! >>> >> >> Ping >> > It should be fine, please add some log indicating "Unexpected num_vports" before returning error. > > Thanks, > Manish Will do. Thank you! >>>>>> * Skip both the calculation immediately above and the code >>>>>>     in the if condition below, which is the only place where >>>>>>     the calculated value is used, if num_vports is 1. >>>>>>     I don't think the if clause makes much sense if num_vports is >>>>>> one.left_rate_per_vp is also used below the if clause, it is >>>>>> assigned to >>>>> .min_speed in a for loop. Looking at that code division by 1 seems >>>>> to make sense to me in this case. >>>>>> >>>>>>>        if (left_rate_per_vp <  min_pf_rate / QED_WFQ_UNIT) { >>>>>>>            DP_VERBOSE(p_hwfn, NETIF_MSG_LINK, >>>>>>>                   "Non WFQ configured vports rate [%d Mbps] is >>>>>>> less >>>>> than one >>>>>>> percent of configured PF min rate[%d Mbps]\n", >>>>>>> -- >>>>>>> 2.25.1 >>>>>>>