From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Alexander Duyck Date: Wed, 05 Apr 2017 12:53:14 +0000 Subject: [Intel-wired-lan] [PATCH] igb: Allow to remove administratively set MAC on VFs In-Reply-To: <20170405091327.GA4988@calimero.vinschen.de> References: <20170404151055.21447-1-vinschen@redhat.com> <20170405091327.GA4988@calimero.vinschen.de> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: intel-wired-lan@osuosl.org List-ID: On Wed, Apr 5, 2017 at 5:13 AM Corinna Vinschen wrote: > Hi Alex, > > On Apr 4 10:33, Alexander Duyck wrote: > > On Tue, Apr 4, 2017 at 10:16 AM, Duyck, Alexander H > > wrote: > > >> -----Original Message----- > > >> From: Intel-wired-lan [mailto: > intel-wired-lan-bounces at lists.osuosl.org] On > > >> Behalf Of Corinna Vinschen > > >> Sent: Tuesday, April 4, 2017 8:11 AM > > >> To: intel-wired-lan at lists.osuosl.org > > >> Cc: netdev at vger.kernel.org > > >> Subject: [Intel-wired-lan] [PATCH] igb: Allow to remove > administratively set MAC > > >> on VFs > > >> [...] > > > > So I just realized there is one other minor issue I just found. In > > igb_rar_set_qsel you should probably add a check for > > "is_valid_ether_addr(addr)" before you set the E1000_RAH_AV bit. For > > the zeroed MAC address it should be cleared so that we aren't > > filtering on a MAC address of all 0's for the VF. > > > > - Alex > > I see your point, but I'm a bit reluctant to do that because > igb_vf_configure() calls igb_set_vf_mac() with addr set to the > zeroed MAC explicitely: > > > eth_zero_addr(mac_addr); > igb_set_vf_mac(adapter, vf, mac_addr); > > So in this case the zero MAC is already treated as valid address > and the E1000_RAH_AV bit is set. Is that just a bug? > > > Corinna > Yes, that would be a bug. We shouldn't be treatin all 0's as a valid address. - Alex -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: