[net,v2] octeontx2-pf: Fix ntuple rule creation to direct packet to VF with higher Rx queue than its PF
Commit Message
It is possible to add a ntuple rule which would like to direct packet to
a VF whose number of queues are greater/less than its PF's queue numbers.
For example a PF can have 2 Rx queues but a VF created on that PF can have
8 Rx queues. As of today, ntuple rule will reject rule because it is
checking the requested queue number against PF's number of Rx queues.
As a part of this fix if the action of a ntuple rule is to move a packet
to a VF's queue then the check is removed. Also, a debug information is
printed to aware user that it is user's responsibility to cross check if
the requested queue number on that VF is a valid one.
Fixes: f0a1913f8a6f ("octeontx2-pf: Add support for ethtool ntuple filters")
Signed-off-by: Suman Ghosh <sumang@marvell.com>
---
v2 changes:
- Removed 'goto' and added the new condition to existing if check.
.../marvell/octeontx2/nic/otx2_flows.c | 20 ++++++++++++++++++-
1 file changed, 19 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
Comments
On 21.11.2023 17:56, Suman Ghosh wrote:
> It is possible to add a ntuple rule which would like to direct packet to
> a VF whose number of queues are greater/less than its PF's queue numbers.
> For example a PF can have 2 Rx queues but a VF created on that PF can have
> 8 Rx queues. As of today, ntuple rule will reject rule because it is
> checking the requested queue number against PF's number of Rx queues.
> As a part of this fix if the action of a ntuple rule is to move a packet
> to a VF's queue then the check is removed. Also, a debug information is
> printed to aware user that it is user's responsibility to cross check if
> the requested queue number on that VF is a valid one.
>
> Fixes: f0a1913f8a6f ("octeontx2-pf: Add support for ethtool ntuple filters")
> Signed-off-by: Suman Ghosh <sumang@marvell.com>
> ---
Reviewed-by: Wojciech Drewek <wojciech.drewek@intel.com>
> v2 changes:
> - Removed 'goto' and added the new condition to existing if check.
>
> .../marvell/octeontx2/nic/otx2_flows.c | 20 ++++++++++++++++++-
> 1 file changed, 19 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/marvell/octeontx2/nic/otx2_flows.c b/drivers/net/ethernet/marvell/octeontx2/nic/otx2_flows.c
> index 4762dbea64a1..97a71e9b8563 100644
> --- a/drivers/net/ethernet/marvell/octeontx2/nic/otx2_flows.c
> +++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/marvell/octeontx2/nic/otx2_flows.c
> @@ -1088,6 +1088,7 @@ int otx2_add_flow(struct otx2_nic *pfvf, struct ethtool_rxnfc *nfc)
> struct ethhdr *eth_hdr;
> bool new = false;
> int err = 0;
> + u64 vf_num;
> u32 ring;
>
> if (!flow_cfg->max_flows) {
> @@ -1100,7 +1101,21 @@ int otx2_add_flow(struct otx2_nic *pfvf, struct ethtool_rxnfc *nfc)
> if (!(pfvf->flags & OTX2_FLAG_NTUPLE_SUPPORT))
> return -ENOMEM;
>
> - if (ring >= pfvf->hw.rx_queues && fsp->ring_cookie != RX_CLS_FLOW_DISC)
> + /* Number of queues on a VF can be greater or less than
> + * the PF's queue. Hence no need to check for the
> + * queue count. Hence no need to check queue count if PF
> + * is installing for its VF. Below is the expected vf_num value
> + * based on the ethtool commands.
> + *
> + * e.g.
> + * 1. ethtool -U <netdev> ... action -1 ==> vf_num:255
> + * 2. ethtool -U <netdev> ... action <queue_num> ==> vf_num:0
> + * 3. ethtool -U <netdev> ... vf <vf_idx> queue <queue_num> ==>
> + * vf_num:vf_idx+1
> + */
> + vf_num = ethtool_get_flow_spec_ring_vf(fsp->ring_cookie);
> + if (!is_otx2_vf(pfvf->pcifunc) && !vf_num &&
> + ring >= pfvf->hw.rx_queues && fsp->ring_cookie != RX_CLS_FLOW_DISC)
> return -EINVAL;
>
> if (fsp->location >= otx2_get_maxflows(flow_cfg))
> @@ -1182,6 +1197,9 @@ int otx2_add_flow(struct otx2_nic *pfvf, struct ethtool_rxnfc *nfc)
> flow_cfg->nr_flows++;
> }
>
> + if (flow->is_vf)
> + netdev_info(pfvf->netdev,
> + "Make sure that VF's queue number is within its queue limit\n");
> return 0;
> }
>
On Tue, Nov 21, 2023 at 10:26:24PM +0530, Suman Ghosh wrote:
> It is possible to add a ntuple rule which would like to direct packet to
> a VF whose number of queues are greater/less than its PF's queue numbers.
> For example a PF can have 2 Rx queues but a VF created on that PF can have
> 8 Rx queues. As of today, ntuple rule will reject rule because it is
> checking the requested queue number against PF's number of Rx queues.
> As a part of this fix if the action of a ntuple rule is to move a packet
> to a VF's queue then the check is removed. Also, a debug information is
> printed to aware user that it is user's responsibility to cross check if
> the requested queue number on that VF is a valid one.
>
> Fixes: f0a1913f8a6f ("octeontx2-pf: Add support for ethtool ntuple filters")
> Signed-off-by: Suman Ghosh <sumang@marvell.com>
> ---
> v2 changes:
> - Removed 'goto' and added the new condition to existing if check.
Thanks for the update.
Reviewed-by: Simon Horman <horms@kernel.org>
Hello:
This patch was applied to netdev/net.git (main)
by Paolo Abeni <pabeni@redhat.com>:
On Tue, 21 Nov 2023 22:26:24 +0530 you wrote:
> It is possible to add a ntuple rule which would like to direct packet to
> a VF whose number of queues are greater/less than its PF's queue numbers.
> For example a PF can have 2 Rx queues but a VF created on that PF can have
> 8 Rx queues. As of today, ntuple rule will reject rule because it is
> checking the requested queue number against PF's number of Rx queues.
> As a part of this fix if the action of a ntuple rule is to move a packet
> to a VF's queue then the check is removed. Also, a debug information is
> printed to aware user that it is user's responsibility to cross check if
> the requested queue number on that VF is a valid one.
>
> [...]
Here is the summary with links:
- [net,v2] octeontx2-pf: Fix ntuple rule creation to direct packet to VF with higher Rx queue than its PF
https://git.kernel.org/netdev/net/c/4aa1d8f89b10
You are awesome, thank you!
@@ -1088,6 +1088,7 @@ int otx2_add_flow(struct otx2_nic *pfvf, struct ethtool_rxnfc *nfc)
struct ethhdr *eth_hdr;
bool new = false;
int err = 0;
+ u64 vf_num;
u32 ring;
if (!flow_cfg->max_flows) {
@@ -1100,7 +1101,21 @@ int otx2_add_flow(struct otx2_nic *pfvf, struct ethtool_rxnfc *nfc)
if (!(pfvf->flags & OTX2_FLAG_NTUPLE_SUPPORT))
return -ENOMEM;
- if (ring >= pfvf->hw.rx_queues && fsp->ring_cookie != RX_CLS_FLOW_DISC)
+ /* Number of queues on a VF can be greater or less than
+ * the PF's queue. Hence no need to check for the
+ * queue count. Hence no need to check queue count if PF
+ * is installing for its VF. Below is the expected vf_num value
+ * based on the ethtool commands.
+ *
+ * e.g.
+ * 1. ethtool -U <netdev> ... action -1 ==> vf_num:255
+ * 2. ethtool -U <netdev> ... action <queue_num> ==> vf_num:0
+ * 3. ethtool -U <netdev> ... vf <vf_idx> queue <queue_num> ==>
+ * vf_num:vf_idx+1
+ */
+ vf_num = ethtool_get_flow_spec_ring_vf(fsp->ring_cookie);
+ if (!is_otx2_vf(pfvf->pcifunc) && !vf_num &&
+ ring >= pfvf->hw.rx_queues && fsp->ring_cookie != RX_CLS_FLOW_DISC)
return -EINVAL;
if (fsp->location >= otx2_get_maxflows(flow_cfg))
@@ -1182,6 +1197,9 @@ int otx2_add_flow(struct otx2_nic *pfvf, struct ethtool_rxnfc *nfc)
flow_cfg->nr_flows++;
}
+ if (flow->is_vf)
+ netdev_info(pfvf->netdev,
+ "Make sure that VF's queue number is within its queue limit\n");
return 0;
}