All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Alexander Duyck <alexander.duyck@gmail.com>
To: w00273186 <wangyunjian@huawei.com>
Cc: David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>,
	Jeff Kirsher <jeffrey.t.kirsher@intel.com>,
	Sergei Shtylyov <sergei.shtylyov@cogentembedded.com>,
	Netdev <netdev@vger.kernel.org>,
	caihe@huawei.com,
	intel-wired-lan <intel-wired-lan@lists.osuosl.org>
Subject: Re: [Intel-wired-lan] [PATCH net v2] i40e: Fix limit imprecise of the number of MAC/VLAN that can be added for VFs
Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2017 08:44:04 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAKgT0UcsnLUWU8qedNrv+bhbgJ6SC9zWyc7oR9gObcYo2atN5g@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1506564064-10740-1-git-send-email-wangyunjian@huawei.com>

On Wed, Sep 27, 2017 at 7:01 PM, w00273186 <wangyunjian@huawei.com> wrote:
> From: Yunjian Wang <wangyunjian@huawei.com>
>
> Now it doesn't limit the number of MAC/VLAN strictly. When there is more
> elements in the virtchnl MAC/VLAN list, it can still add successfully.

You could still add but should you. I'm not clear from this patch
description what this is supposed to be addressing. If you enable the
"trust" flag for a VF via the "ip link set dev <iface> vf <vfnum>
trust on" it can make use of any resources on the device, but without
that there is an upper limit that is supposed to be enforced to
prevent the VF from making use of an excessive amount of resources.
That is what is being enforced by the code you are moving out of the
way below.

> Signed-off-by: Yunjian Wang <wangyunjian@huawei.com>
> ---
>  drivers/net/ethernet/intel/i40e/i40e_virtchnl_pf.c | 27 +++++++++++++---------
>  1 file changed, 16 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/i40e/i40e_virtchnl_pf.c b/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/i40e/i40e_virtchnl_pf.c
> index 4d1e670..285b96a 100644
> --- a/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/i40e/i40e_virtchnl_pf.c
> +++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/i40e/i40e_virtchnl_pf.c
> @@ -2065,11 +2065,6 @@ static inline int i40e_check_vf_permission(struct i40e_vf *vf, u8 *macaddr)
>                 dev_err(&pf->pdev->dev,
>                         "VF attempting to override administratively set MAC address, reload the VF driver to resume normal operation\n");
>                 ret = -EPERM;
> -       } else if ((vf->num_mac >= I40E_VC_MAX_MAC_ADDR_PER_VF) &&
> -                  !test_bit(I40E_VIRTCHNL_VF_CAP_PRIVILEGE, &vf->vf_caps)) {
> -               dev_err(&pf->pdev->dev,
> -                       "VF is not trusted, switch the VF to trusted to add more functionality\n");
> -               ret = -EPERM;
>         }
>         return ret;
>  }
> @@ -2128,6 +2123,15 @@ static int i40e_vc_add_mac_addr_msg(struct i40e_vf *vf, u8 *msg, u16 msglen)
>                 } else {
>                         vf->num_mac++;
>                 }
> +
> +               if ((vf->num_mac >= I40E_VC_MAX_MAC_ADDR_PER_VF) &&
> +                   !test_bit(I40E_VIRTCHNL_VF_CAP_PRIVILEGE, &vf->vf_caps)) {
> +                       dev_err(&pf->pdev->dev,
> +                               "VF is not trusted, switch the VF to trusted to add more functionality\n");
> +                       ret = -EPERM;
> +                       spin_unlock_bh(&vsi->mac_filter_hash_lock);
> +                       goto error_param;
> +               }
>         }
>         spin_unlock_bh(&vsi->mac_filter_hash_lock);
>

This doesn't make any sense. You are doing the checks after you have
already added the MAC. The only part you aren't doing is sending the
message to the VF indicating that the request was successful.

> @@ -2221,12 +2225,6 @@ static int i40e_vc_add_vlan_msg(struct i40e_vf *vf, u8 *msg, u16 msglen)
>         i40e_status aq_ret = 0;
>         int i;
>
> -       if ((vf->num_vlan >= I40E_VC_MAX_VLAN_PER_VF) &&
> -           !test_bit(I40E_VIRTCHNL_VF_CAP_PRIVILEGE, &vf->vf_caps)) {
> -               dev_err(&pf->pdev->dev,
> -                       "VF is not trusted, switch the VF to trusted to add more VLAN addresses\n");
> -               goto error_param;
> -       }
>         if (!test_bit(I40E_VF_STATE_ACTIVE, &vf->vf_states) ||
>             !i40e_vc_isvalid_vsi_id(vf, vsi_id)) {
>                 aq_ret = I40E_ERR_PARAM;
> @@ -2269,6 +2267,13 @@ static int i40e_vc_add_vlan_msg(struct i40e_vf *vf, u8 *msg, u16 msglen)
>                         dev_err(&pf->pdev->dev,
>                                 "Unable to add VLAN filter %d for VF %d, error %d\n",
>                                 vfl->vlan_id[i], vf->vf_id, ret);
> +               if ((vf->num_vlan >= I40E_VC_MAX_VLAN_PER_VF) &&
> +                   !test_bit(I40E_VIRTCHNL_VF_CAP_PRIVILEGE, &vf->vf_caps)) {
> +                       dev_err(&pf->pdev->dev,
> +                               "VF is not trusted, switch the VF to trusted to add more VLAN addresses\n");
> +                       aq_ret = -EPERM;
> +                       goto error_param;
> +               }
>         }
>
>  error_param:

Same here. You are doing this after the call to i40e_vsi_add_vlan. The
code makes no sense here. This bit of code is supposed to be
preventing a VF from abusing resources if the VF is not privelaged.

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Alexander Duyck <alexander.duyck@gmail.com>
To: intel-wired-lan@osuosl.org
Subject: [Intel-wired-lan] [PATCH net v2] i40e: Fix limit imprecise of the number of MAC/VLAN that can be added for VFs
Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2017 08:44:04 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAKgT0UcsnLUWU8qedNrv+bhbgJ6SC9zWyc7oR9gObcYo2atN5g@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1506564064-10740-1-git-send-email-wangyunjian@huawei.com>

On Wed, Sep 27, 2017 at 7:01 PM, w00273186 <wangyunjian@huawei.com> wrote:
> From: Yunjian Wang <wangyunjian@huawei.com>
>
> Now it doesn't limit the number of MAC/VLAN strictly. When there is more
> elements in the virtchnl MAC/VLAN list, it can still add successfully.

You could still add but should you. I'm not clear from this patch
description what this is supposed to be addressing. If you enable the
"trust" flag for a VF via the "ip link set dev <iface> vf <vfnum>
trust on" it can make use of any resources on the device, but without
that there is an upper limit that is supposed to be enforced to
prevent the VF from making use of an excessive amount of resources.
That is what is being enforced by the code you are moving out of the
way below.

> Signed-off-by: Yunjian Wang <wangyunjian@huawei.com>
> ---
>  drivers/net/ethernet/intel/i40e/i40e_virtchnl_pf.c | 27 +++++++++++++---------
>  1 file changed, 16 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/i40e/i40e_virtchnl_pf.c b/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/i40e/i40e_virtchnl_pf.c
> index 4d1e670..285b96a 100644
> --- a/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/i40e/i40e_virtchnl_pf.c
> +++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/i40e/i40e_virtchnl_pf.c
> @@ -2065,11 +2065,6 @@ static inline int i40e_check_vf_permission(struct i40e_vf *vf, u8 *macaddr)
>                 dev_err(&pf->pdev->dev,
>                         "VF attempting to override administratively set MAC address, reload the VF driver to resume normal operation\n");
>                 ret = -EPERM;
> -       } else if ((vf->num_mac >= I40E_VC_MAX_MAC_ADDR_PER_VF) &&
> -                  !test_bit(I40E_VIRTCHNL_VF_CAP_PRIVILEGE, &vf->vf_caps)) {
> -               dev_err(&pf->pdev->dev,
> -                       "VF is not trusted, switch the VF to trusted to add more functionality\n");
> -               ret = -EPERM;
>         }
>         return ret;
>  }
> @@ -2128,6 +2123,15 @@ static int i40e_vc_add_mac_addr_msg(struct i40e_vf *vf, u8 *msg, u16 msglen)
>                 } else {
>                         vf->num_mac++;
>                 }
> +
> +               if ((vf->num_mac >= I40E_VC_MAX_MAC_ADDR_PER_VF) &&
> +                   !test_bit(I40E_VIRTCHNL_VF_CAP_PRIVILEGE, &vf->vf_caps)) {
> +                       dev_err(&pf->pdev->dev,
> +                               "VF is not trusted, switch the VF to trusted to add more functionality\n");
> +                       ret = -EPERM;
> +                       spin_unlock_bh(&vsi->mac_filter_hash_lock);
> +                       goto error_param;
> +               }
>         }
>         spin_unlock_bh(&vsi->mac_filter_hash_lock);
>

This doesn't make any sense. You are doing the checks after you have
already added the MAC. The only part you aren't doing is sending the
message to the VF indicating that the request was successful.

> @@ -2221,12 +2225,6 @@ static int i40e_vc_add_vlan_msg(struct i40e_vf *vf, u8 *msg, u16 msglen)
>         i40e_status aq_ret = 0;
>         int i;
>
> -       if ((vf->num_vlan >= I40E_VC_MAX_VLAN_PER_VF) &&
> -           !test_bit(I40E_VIRTCHNL_VF_CAP_PRIVILEGE, &vf->vf_caps)) {
> -               dev_err(&pf->pdev->dev,
> -                       "VF is not trusted, switch the VF to trusted to add more VLAN addresses\n");
> -               goto error_param;
> -       }
>         if (!test_bit(I40E_VF_STATE_ACTIVE, &vf->vf_states) ||
>             !i40e_vc_isvalid_vsi_id(vf, vsi_id)) {
>                 aq_ret = I40E_ERR_PARAM;
> @@ -2269,6 +2267,13 @@ static int i40e_vc_add_vlan_msg(struct i40e_vf *vf, u8 *msg, u16 msglen)
>                         dev_err(&pf->pdev->dev,
>                                 "Unable to add VLAN filter %d for VF %d, error %d\n",
>                                 vfl->vlan_id[i], vf->vf_id, ret);
> +               if ((vf->num_vlan >= I40E_VC_MAX_VLAN_PER_VF) &&
> +                   !test_bit(I40E_VIRTCHNL_VF_CAP_PRIVILEGE, &vf->vf_caps)) {
> +                       dev_err(&pf->pdev->dev,
> +                               "VF is not trusted, switch the VF to trusted to add more VLAN addresses\n");
> +                       aq_ret = -EPERM;
> +                       goto error_param;
> +               }
>         }
>
>  error_param:

Same here. You are doing this after the call to i40e_vsi_add_vlan. The
code makes no sense here. This bit of code is supposed to be
preventing a VF from abusing resources if the VF is not privelaged.

  reply	other threads:[~2017-09-28 15:44 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2017-09-28  2:01 [PATCH net v2] i40e: Fix limit imprecise of the number of MAC/VLAN that can be added for VFs w00273186
2017-09-28  2:01 ` [Intel-wired-lan] " w00273186
2017-09-28 15:44 ` Alexander Duyck [this message]
2017-09-28 15:44   ` Alexander Duyck
2017-09-29  9:13   ` wangyunjian
2017-09-29  9:13     ` wangyunjian
2017-09-29 15:04     ` Alexander Duyck
2017-09-29 15:04       ` Alexander Duyck

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=CAKgT0UcsnLUWU8qedNrv+bhbgJ6SC9zWyc7oR9gObcYo2atN5g@mail.gmail.com \
    --to=alexander.duyck@gmail.com \
    --cc=caihe@huawei.com \
    --cc=davem@davemloft.net \
    --cc=intel-wired-lan@lists.osuosl.org \
    --cc=jeffrey.t.kirsher@intel.com \
    --cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=sergei.shtylyov@cogentembedded.com \
    --cc=wangyunjian@huawei.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.