| Message ID | 20241031060247.1290941-1-wei.fang@nxp.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| Headers | show |
| Series | Fix issues when PF sets MAC address for VF | expand |
On Thu, 31 Oct 2024 14:02:45 +0800 Wei Fang wrote: > net: enetc: allocate vf_state during PF probes > net: enetc: prevent PF from configuring MAC address for an enabled VF This combination of changes would imply that nobody sets the MAC address on VFs via this driver, correct? Patch 1 fixes a crash if address is set before VFs are enabled, patch 2 forces setting the MAC before VFs are enabled (which would previously crash). Which leads me to believe this will cause regressions to all users, if such users exist. The fact that the MAC address is not picked up by a running VM is normal, I'd say even maybe expected. IIUC hypervisor will enable SRIOV at the start of day, then allocate, configure and assign VFs to VMs. It will FLR the VF after configuration. Your change will make it impossible to reconfigure VF with a MAC of a new VM, if any other VF is in use. Long story short, I don't believe the patch 2 is necessary at all, maybe you can print a warning to the logs, if you really want.
Hello: This series was applied to netdev/net.git (main) by Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>: On Thu, 31 Oct 2024 14:02:45 +0800 you wrote: > The ENETC PF driver provides enetc_pf_set_vf_mac() to configure the MAC > address for the ENETC VF, but there are two issues when configuring the > MAC address of the VF through this interface. For specific issues, please > refer to the commit message of the following two patches. Therefore, this > patch set is used to fix these two issues. > > Wei Fang (2): > net: enetc: allocate vf_state during PF probes > net: enetc: prevent PF from configuring MAC address for an enabled VF > > [...] Here is the summary with links: - [net,1/2] net: enetc: allocate vf_state during PF probes https://git.kernel.org/netdev/net/c/e15c5506dd39 - [net,2/2] net: enetc: prevent PF from configuring MAC address for an enabled VF (no matching commit) You are awesome, thank you!
> -----Original Message----- > From: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org> > Sent: 2024年11月4日 4:51 > To: Wei Fang <wei.fang@nxp.com> > Cc: davem@davemloft.net; edumazet@google.com; pabeni@redhat.com; > andrew+netdev@lunn.ch; Claudiu Manoil <claudiu.manoil@nxp.com>; > Vladimir Oltean <vladimir.oltean@nxp.com>; netdev@vger.kernel.org; > linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org; imx@lists.linux.dev > Subject: Re: [PATCH net 0/2] Fix issues when PF sets MAC address for VF > > On Thu, 31 Oct 2024 14:02:45 +0800 Wei Fang wrote: > > net: enetc: allocate vf_state during PF probes > > net: enetc: prevent PF from configuring MAC address for an enabled VF > > This combination of changes would imply that nobody sets the MAC > address on VFs via this driver, correct? Patch 1 fixes a crash > if address is set before VFs are enabled, patch 2 forces setting > the MAC before VFs are enabled (which would previously crash). > Which leads me to believe this will cause regressions to all users, > if such users exist. To be honest, I don't know much about the LS1028A platform. Apparently, Before this patch, users could only modify the MAC address of VF through the PF driver after the VF is enabled. However, the VF driver only obtains the MAC address from the register and set it into net_device during probe. Since VF has been enabled, the VF driver has already completed the probe. Therefore, if users want to the VF network to work properly, they need to re-probe the VF driver. If users do disable/enable SRIOV or unbind/bind VF driver to re-probe the VF driver, such as you mentioned below, assign the VF to a VM, patch 2 will indeed cause a regression issue. > > The fact that the MAC address is not picked up by a running VM is > normal, I'd say even maybe expected. IIUC hypervisor will enable > SRIOV at the start of day, then allocate, configure and assign VFs > to VMs. It will FLR the VF after configuration. > > Your change will make it impossible to reconfigure VF with a MAC > of a new VM, if any other VF is in use. > > Long story short, I don't believe the patch 2 is necessary at all, > maybe you can print a warning to the logs, if you really want. I think your concern is reasonable, the best way is that we add the PSI-to-VSI messaging in the future, so that is wont cause regression issue. Thanks.