Hi Dan, > -----Original Message----- > From: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@xxxxxxxxxx> > Sent: Monday, April 22, 2019 3:09 AM > To: Parav Pandit <parav@xxxxxxxxxxxx> > Cc: Leon Romanovsky <leon@xxxxxxxxxx>; Eli Cohen <eli@xxxxxxxxxxxx>; > Doug Ledford <dledford@xxxxxxxxxx>; Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@xxxxxxxx>; > linux-rdma@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; kernel-janitors@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > Subject: Re: [PATCH] IB/mlx5: add checking for "vf" from do_setvfinfo() > > On Tue, Apr 16, 2019 at 10:54:42PM +0000, Parav Pandit wrote: > > > Yeah. But the call tree here is: > > > > > > do_setvfinfo() > > > -> ops->ndo_get_vf_config() > > > -> rtnl_fill_vfinfo() > > > -> dev->netdev_ops->ndo_get_vf_config(dev, vfs_num, &ivi) > > > -> ipoib_get_vf_config() > > > -> ib_get_vf_config > > > -> device->ops.get_vf_config(device, vf, port, info); > > > > > > Changing the ->ndo_get_vf_config() pointer means you have to update > > > 20 functions in various drivers. It becomes quite involved. We > > > should apply this simple self contained fix then worry about doing other > cleanups later. > > > > > But if a static checker is run on following functions, they need for vf < 0 > check. > > > > i40e_ndo_get_vf_config > > mlx5e_get_vf_config > > bnxt_get_vf_config > > etc and few more. > > I checked again to see if it was "20 functions" or if it was "etc and few > more"... It turns out its only 18 functions because I double counted two > functions at first. Here is the list: > > be_get_vf_config > bnx2x_get_vf_config > bnxt_get_vf_config > cxgb4_mgmt_get_vf_config > efx_sriov_get_vf_config > fm10k_ndo_get_vf_config > i40e_ndo_get_vf_config > ice_get_vf_cfg > igb_ndo_get_vf_config > ipoib_get_vf_config > ixgbe_ndo_get_vf_config > liquidio_get_vf_config > mlx4_en_get_vf_config > mlx5e_get_vf_config > nfp_app_get_vf_config > nsim_get_vf_config > qede_get_vf_config > qlcnic_sriov_get_vf_config > > But you also have to update the call tress as well... It's really very involved. I > seriously did look at how to do this and the original patch is the Right Thing > To Do [tm]. I've probably sent around 92 underflow patches and sometimes > I would definitely agree with you that changing the type is the right fix but > not in this case. > Do you plan to fix all the above functions for < 0? There are other several other ndo_get_vf_* functions who need < 0 check. What about them? Will you fix them as well? Instead of doing all those fixes, why not use right u32 data type to eliminate < 0 check? What about sriov getting disabled right after > vf check passes?
