diff options
| author | Suman Ghosh <sumang@marvell.com> | 2023-11-21 22:26:24 +0530 |
|---|---|---|
| committer | Paolo Abeni <pabeni@redhat.com> | 2023-11-23 12:55:32 +0100 |
| commit | 4aa1d8f89b10cdc25a231dabf808d8935e0b137a (patch) | |
| tree | b3be378f52396514d5d54db43a742bcfa159a672 | |
| parent | 99360d9620f09fb8bc15548d855011bbb198c680 (diff) | |
| download | linux-4aa1d8f89b10cdc25a231dabf808d8935e0b137a.tar.gz | |
octeontx2-pf: Fix ntuple rule creation to direct packet to VF with higher Rx queue than its PF
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>
Reviewed-by: Simon Horman <horms@kernel.org>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20231121165624.3664182-1-sumang@marvell.com
Signed-off-by: Paolo Abeni <pabeni@redhat.com>
| -rw-r--r-- | drivers/net/ethernet/marvell/octeontx2/nic/otx2_flows.c | 20 |
1 files changed, 19 insertions, 1 deletions
diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/marvell/octeontx2/nic/otx2_flows.c b/drivers/net/ethernet/marvell/octeontx2/nic/otx2_flows.c index 4762dbea64a12b..97a71e9b856372 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; } |