This is a note to let you know that I've just added the patch titled
octeontx2-pf: Fix ntuple rule creation to direct packet to VF with higher Rx queue than its PF
to the 6.6-stable tree which can be found at:
http://www.kernel.org/git/?p=linux/kernel/git/stable/stable-queue.git;a=summary
The filename of the patch is:
octeontx2-pf-fix-ntuple-rule-creation-to-direct-pack.patch
and it can be found in the queue-6.6 subdirectory.
If you, or anyone else, feels it should not be added to the stable tree,
please let <stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> know about it.
commit c68e429cfc99fab06f12124c5038dfc20f693507
Author: Suman Ghosh <sumang@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue Nov 21 22:26:24 2023 +0530
octeontx2-pf: Fix ntuple rule creation to direct packet to VF with higher Rx queue than its PF
[ Upstream commit 4aa1d8f89b10cdc25a231dabf808d8935e0b137a ]
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@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Reviewed-by: Wojciech Drewek <wojciech.drewek@xxxxxxxxx>
Reviewed-by: Simon Horman <horms@xxxxxxxxxx>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20231121165624.3664182-1-sumang@xxxxxxxxxxx
Signed-off-by: Paolo Abeni <pabeni@xxxxxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin <sashal@xxxxxxxxxx>
diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/marvell/octeontx2/nic/otx2_flows.c b/drivers/net/ethernet/marvell/octeontx2/nic/otx2_flows.c
index 4762dbea64a12..97a71e9b85637 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;
}
