@@ -16182,6 +16185,7 @@ static int __maybe_unused i40e_suspend(struct device *dev)*toCPU0.*/i40e_clear_interrupt_scheme(pf);+i40e_reset_interrupt_capability(pf);rtnl_unlock();--
2.27.0
________________________________
Note: This email is for the confidential use of the named addressee(s) only and may contain proprietary, confidential, or privileged information and/or personal data. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any review, dissemination, or copying of this email is strictly prohibited, and requested to notify the sender immediately and destroy this email and any attachments. Email transmission cannot be guaranteed to be secure or error-free. The Company, therefore, does not make any guarantees as to the completeness or accuracy of this email or any attachments. This email is for informational purposes only and does not constitute a recommendation, offer, request, or solicitation of any kind to buy, sell, subscribe, redeem, or perform any type of transaction of a financial product. Personal data, as defined by applicable data protection and privacy laws, contained in this email may be processed by the Company, and any of its affiliated or related companies, for legal, compliance, and/or business-related purposes. You may have rights regarding your personal data; for information on exercising these rights or the Company’s treatment of personal data, please email datarequests@jumptrading.com.
From: "Nguyen, Anthony L" <anthony.l.nguyen@intel.com> Date: 2021-08-30 20:52:47
On Thu, 2021-08-26 at 17:19 -0500, PJ Waskiewicz wrote:
This fixes an error path condition when probe() fails due to the
default VSI not being available or online yet in the firmware. If
that happens, the previous teardown path would clear the interrupt
scheme, which also freed the IRQs with the OS. Then the error path
for the switch setup (pre-VSI) would attempt to free the OS IRQs
as well.
Hi PJ,
These comments are from the i40e team.
Yes in case we fail and go to err_vsis label in i40e_probe() we will
call i40e_reset_interrupt_capability twice but this is not a problem.
This is because pci_disable_msi/pci_disable_msix will be called only if
appropriate flags are set on PF and if this function is called ones it
will clear those flags. So even if we call
i40e_reset_interrupt_capability twice we will not disable msi vectors
twice.
The issue here is different however. It is failing in free_irq because
we are trying to free already free vector. This is because setup of
misc irq vectors in i40e_probe is done after i40e_setup_pf_switch. If
i40e_setup_pf_switch fails then we will jump to err_vsis and call
i40e_clear_interrupt_scheme which will try to free those misc irq
vectors which were not yet allocated. We should have the proper fix for
this ready soon.
On Mon, Aug 30, 2021 at 08:52:41PM +0000, Nguyen, Anthony L wrote:
On Thu, 2021-08-26 at 17:19 -0500, PJ Waskiewicz wrote:
quoted
This fixes an error path condition when probe() fails due to the
default VSI not being available or online yet in the firmware. If
that happens, the previous teardown path would clear the interrupt
scheme, which also freed the IRQs with the OS. Then the error path
for the switch setup (pre-VSI) would attempt to free the OS IRQs
as well.
Hi PJ,
Hi Tony,
These comments are from the i40e team.
Yes in case we fail and go to err_vsis label in i40e_probe() we will
call i40e_reset_interrupt_capability twice but this is not a problem.
This is because pci_disable_msi/pci_disable_msix will be called only if
appropriate flags are set on PF and if this function is called ones it
will clear those flags. So even if we call
i40e_reset_interrupt_capability twice we will not disable msi vectors
twice.
The issue here is different however. It is failing in free_irq because
we are trying to free already free vector. This is because setup of
misc irq vectors in i40e_probe is done after i40e_setup_pf_switch. If
i40e_setup_pf_switch fails then we will jump to err_vsis and call
i40e_clear_interrupt_scheme which will try to free those misc irq
vectors which were not yet allocated. We should have the proper fix for
this ready soon.
Yes, I'm aware of what's happening here and why it's failing. Sadly, I am
pretty sure I wrote this code back in like 2011 or 2012, and being an error
path, it hasn't really been tested.
I don't really care how this gets fixed to be honest. We hit this in
production when our LOM, for whatever reason, failed to initialize the
internal switch on host boot. We escalated to our distro vendor, they
did escalate to Intel, and it wasn't really prioritized. So I sent
a patch that does fix the issue.
If the team wants to respin this somehow, go ahead. But this does fix
the immediate issue that when bailing out in probe() due to the main VSI
not being online for whatever reason, the driver blindly attempts to clean
up the misc MSI-X vector twice. This change fixes that behavior. I'd like
this to not languish waiting for a different fix, since I'd like to point our
distro vendor to this (or another) patch to cherry-pick, so we can get this
into production. Otherwise our platform rollout hitting this problem is
going to be quite bumpy, which is very much not ideal.
Cheers,
-PJ
________________________________
Note: This email is for the confidential use of the named addressee(s) only and may contain proprietary, confidential, or privileged information and/or personal data. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any review, dissemination, or copying of this email is strictly prohibited, and requested to notify the sender immediately and destroy this email and any attachments. Email transmission cannot be guaranteed to be secure or error-free. The Company, therefore, does not make any guarantees as to the completeness or accuracy of this email or any attachments. This email is for informational purposes only and does not constitute a recommendation, offer, request, or solicitation of any kind to buy, sell, subscribe, redeem, or perform any type of transaction of a financial product. Personal data, as defined by applicable data protection and privacy laws, contained in this email may be processed by the Company, and any of its affiliated or related companies, for legal, compliance, and/or business-related purposes. You may have rights regarding your personal data; for information on exercising these rights or the Company’s treatment of personal data, please email datarequests@jumptrading.com.
-----Original Message-----
From: PJ Waskiewicz <redacted>
Sent: Tuesday, August 31, 2021 1:59 PM
To: Nguyen, Anthony L <anthony.l.nguyen@intel.com>
Cc: intel-wired-lan@lists.osuosl.org; pjwaskiewicz@gmail.com; Loktionov,
Aleksandr [off-list ref]; Fijalkowski, Maciej
[off-list ref]; Dziedziuch, SylwesterX
[off-list ref]; davem@davemloft.net; Brandeburg,
Jesse [off-list ref]; netdev@vger.kernel.org; PJ
Waskiewicz [off-list ref]
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] i40e: Avoid double IRQ free on error path in probe()
On Mon, Aug 30, 2021 at 08:52:41PM +0000, Nguyen, Anthony L wrote:
quoted
On Thu, 2021-08-26 at 17:19 -0500, PJ Waskiewicz wrote:
quoted
This fixes an error path condition when probe() fails due to the
default VSI not being available or online yet in the firmware. If
that happens, the previous teardown path would clear the interrupt
scheme, which also freed the IRQs with the OS. Then the error path
for the switch setup (pre-VSI) would attempt to free the OS IRQs as
well.
Hi PJ,
Hi Tony,
quoted
These comments are from the i40e team.
Yes in case we fail and go to err_vsis label in i40e_probe() we will
call i40e_reset_interrupt_capability twice but this is not a problem.
This is because pci_disable_msi/pci_disable_msix will be called only
if appropriate flags are set on PF and if this function is called ones
it will clear those flags. So even if we call
i40e_reset_interrupt_capability twice we will not disable msi vectors
twice.
The issue here is different however. It is failing in free_irq because
we are trying to free already free vector. This is because setup of
misc irq vectors in i40e_probe is done after i40e_setup_pf_switch. If
i40e_setup_pf_switch fails then we will jump to err_vsis and call
i40e_clear_interrupt_scheme which will try to free those misc irq
vectors which were not yet allocated. We should have the proper fix
for this ready soon.
Yes, I'm aware of what's happening here and why it's failing. Sadly, I am
pretty sure I wrote this code back in like 2011 or 2012, and being an error
path, it hasn't really been tested.
I don't really care how this gets fixed to be honest. We hit this in production
when our LOM, for whatever reason, failed to initialize the internal switch on
host boot. We escalated to our distro vendor, they did escalate to Intel, and
it wasn't really prioritized. So I sent a patch that does fix the issue.
If the team wants to respin this somehow, go ahead. But this does fix the
immediate issue that when bailing out in probe() due to the main VSI not
being online for whatever reason, the driver blindly attempts to clean up the
misc MSI-X vector twice. This change fixes that behavior. I'd like this to not
languish waiting for a different fix, since I'd like to point our distro vendor to
this (or another) patch to cherry-pick, so we can get this into production.
Otherwise our platform rollout hitting this problem is going to be quite
bumpy, which is very much not ideal.
It's been 2 weeks since I replied. Any update on this? Maciej had already reviewed the patch, so hoping we can just move along with it, or get something else out soon?
I'd really like this to not just fall into a void waiting for a different patch when this fixes the issue.
-PJ
________________________________
Note: This email is for the confidential use of the named addressee(s) only and may contain proprietary, confidential, or privileged information and/or personal data. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any review, dissemination, or copying of this email is strictly prohibited, and requested to notify the sender immediately and destroy this email and any attachments. Email transmission cannot be guaranteed to be secure or error-free. The Company, therefore, does not make any guarantees as to the completeness or accuracy of this email or any attachments. This email is for informational purposes only and does not constitute a recommendation, offer, request, or solicitation of any kind to buy, sell, subscribe, redeem, or perform any type of transaction of a financial product. Personal data, as defined by applicable data protection and privacy laws, contained in this email may be processed by the Company, and any of its affiliated or related companies, for legal, compliance, and/or business-related purposes. You may have rights regarding your personal data; for information on exercising these rights or the Company’s treatment of personal data, please email datarequests@jumptrading.com.
From: "Nguyen, Anthony L" <anthony.l.nguyen@intel.com> Date: 2021-09-13 20:29:40
On Mon, 2021-09-13 at 19:37 +0000, PJ Waskiewicz wrote:
Hi Tony,
quoted
-----Original Message-----
From: PJ Waskiewicz <redacted>
Sent: Tuesday, August 31, 2021 1:59 PM
To: Nguyen, Anthony L <anthony.l.nguyen@intel.com>
Cc: intel-wired-lan@lists.osuosl.org; pjwaskiewicz@gmail.com;
Loktionov,
Aleksandr [off-list ref]; Fijalkowski, Maciej
[off-list ref]; Dziedziuch, SylwesterX
[off-list ref]; davem@davemloft.net; Brandeburg,
Jesse [off-list ref]; netdev@vger.kernel.org; PJ
Waskiewicz [off-list ref]
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] i40e: Avoid double IRQ free on error path
in probe()
On Mon, Aug 30, 2021 at 08:52:41PM +0000, Nguyen, Anthony L wrote:
quoted
On Thu, 2021-08-26 at 17:19 -0500, PJ Waskiewicz wrote:
quoted
This fixes an error path condition when probe() fails due to
the
default VSI not being available or online yet in the firmware.
If
that happens, the previous teardown path would clear the
interrupt
scheme, which also freed the IRQs with the OS. Then the error
path
for the switch setup (pre-VSI) would attempt to free the OS
IRQs as
well.
Hi PJ,
Hi Tony,
quoted
These comments are from the i40e team.
Yes in case we fail and go to err_vsis label in i40e_probe() we
will
call i40e_reset_interrupt_capability twice but this is not a
problem.
This is because pci_disable_msi/pci_disable_msix will be called
only
if appropriate flags are set on PF and if this function is called
ones
it will clear those flags. So even if we call
i40e_reset_interrupt_capability twice we will not disable msi
vectors
twice.
The issue here is different however. It is failing in free_irq
because
we are trying to free already free vector. This is because setup
of
misc irq vectors in i40e_probe is done after
i40e_setup_pf_switch. If
i40e_setup_pf_switch fails then we will jump to err_vsis and call
i40e_clear_interrupt_scheme which will try to free those misc irq
vectors which were not yet allocated. We should have the proper
fix
for this ready soon.
Yes, I'm aware of what's happening here and why it's failing.
Sadly, I am
pretty sure I wrote this code back in like 2011 or 2012, and being
an error
path, it hasn't really been tested.
I don't really care how this gets fixed to be honest. We hit this
in production
when our LOM, for whatever reason, failed to initialize the
internal switch on
host boot. We escalated to our distro vendor, they did escalate to
Intel, and
it wasn't really prioritized. So I sent a patch that does fix the
issue.
If the team wants to respin this somehow, go ahead. But this does
fix the
immediate issue that when bailing out in probe() due to the main
VSI not
being online for whatever reason, the driver blindly attempts to
clean up the
misc MSI-X vector twice. This change fixes that behavior. I'd like
this to not
languish waiting for a different fix, since I'd like to point our
distro vendor to
this (or another) patch to cherry-pick, so we can get this into
production.
Otherwise our platform rollout hitting this problem is going to be
quite
bumpy, which is very much not ideal.
It's been 2 weeks since I replied. Any update on this? Maciej had
already reviewed the patch, so hoping we can just move along with it,
or get something else out soon?
I'd really like this to not just fall into a void waiting for a
different patch when this fixes the issue.
Hi PJ,
I haven't seen a recent update on this. I'm asking for an update.
Otherwise, Alex and Sylwester are on this thread; perhaps they have
some info.
Thanks,
Tony
-PJ
________________________________
Note: This email is for the confidential use of the named
addressee(s) only and may contain proprietary, confidential, or
privileged information and/or personal data. If you are not the
intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any review,
dissemination, or copying of this email is strictly prohibited, and
requested to notify the sender immediately and destroy this email and
any attachments. Email transmission cannot be guaranteed to be secure
or error-free. The Company, therefore, does not make any guarantees
as to the completeness or accuracy of this email or any attachments.
This email is for informational purposes only and does not constitute
a recommendation, offer, request, or solicitation of any kind to buy,
sell, subscribe, redeem, or perform any type of transaction of a
financial product. Personal data, as defined by applicable data
protection and privacy laws, contained in this email may be processed
by the Company, and any of its affiliated or related companies, for
legal, compliance, and/or business-related purposes. You may have
rights regarding your personal data; for information on exercising
these rights or the Company’s treatment of personal data, please
email datarequests@jumptrading.com.
On Mon, 2021-09-13 at 19:37 +0000, PJ Waskiewicz wrote:
quoted
Hi Tony,
quoted
-----Original Message-----
From: PJ Waskiewicz <redacted>
Sent: Tuesday, August 31, 2021 1:59 PM
To: Nguyen, Anthony L <anthony.l.nguyen@intel.com>
Cc: intel-wired-lan@lists.osuosl.org; pjwaskiewicz@gmail.com;
Loktionov, Aleksandr [off-list ref]; Fijalkowski,
Maciej [off-list ref]; Dziedziuch, SylwesterX
[off-list ref]; davem@davemloft.net; Brandeburg,
Jesse [off-list ref]; netdev@vger.kernel.org; PJ
Waskiewicz [off-list ref]
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] i40e: Avoid double IRQ free on error path
in probe()
On Mon, Aug 30, 2021 at 08:52:41PM +0000, Nguyen, Anthony L wrote:
quoted
On Thu, 2021-08-26 at 17:19 -0500, PJ Waskiewicz wrote:
quoted
This fixes an error path condition when probe() fails due to the
default VSI not being available or online yet in the firmware.
If
that happens, the previous teardown path would clear the
interrupt scheme, which also freed the IRQs with the OS. Then
the error path for the switch setup (pre-VSI) would attempt to
free the OS IRQs as well.
Hi PJ,
Hi Tony,
quoted
These comments are from the i40e team.
Yes in case we fail and go to err_vsis label in i40e_probe() we
will call i40e_reset_interrupt_capability twice but this is not a
problem.
This is because pci_disable_msi/pci_disable_msix will be called
only if appropriate flags are set on PF and if this function is
called ones it will clear those flags. So even if we call
i40e_reset_interrupt_capability twice we will not disable msi
vectors twice.
The issue here is different however. It is failing in free_irq
because we are trying to free already free vector. This is because
setup of misc irq vectors in i40e_probe is done after
i40e_setup_pf_switch. If i40e_setup_pf_switch fails then we will
jump to err_vsis and call i40e_clear_interrupt_scheme which will
try to free those misc irq vectors which were not yet allocated.
We should have the proper fix for this ready soon.
Yes, I'm aware of what's happening here and why it's failing.
Sadly, I am
pretty sure I wrote this code back in like 2011 or 2012, and being
an error path, it hasn't really been tested.
I don't really care how this gets fixed to be honest. We hit this in
production when our LOM, for whatever reason, failed to initialize
the internal switch on host boot. We escalated to our distro vendor,
they did escalate to Intel, and it wasn't really prioritized. So I
sent a patch that does fix the issue.
If the team wants to respin this somehow, go ahead. But this does
fix the immediate issue that when bailing out in probe() due to the
main VSI not being online for whatever reason, the driver blindly
attempts to clean up the misc MSI-X vector twice. This change fixes
that behavior. I'd like this to not languish waiting for a different
fix, since I'd like to point our distro vendor to this (or another)
patch to cherry-pick, so we can get this into production.
Otherwise our platform rollout hitting this problem is going to be
quite bumpy, which is very much not ideal.
It's been 2 weeks since I replied. Any update on this? Maciej had
already reviewed the patch, so hoping we can just move along with it,
or get something else out soon?
I'd really like this to not just fall into a void waiting for a
different patch when this fixes the issue.
Hi PJ,
I haven't seen a recent update on this. I'm asking for an update.
Otherwise, Alex and Sylwester are on this thread; perhaps they have some
info.
Thanks,
Tony
Hello,
The driver does not blindly try to free MSI-X vector twice here. This is guarded by I40E_FLAG_MSIX_ENABLED and I40E_FLAG_MSI_ENABLED flags. Only if those flags are set we will try to free MSI/MSI-X vectors in i40e_reset_interrupt_capability(). Additionally i40e_reset_interrupt_capability() clears those flags every time it is called so even if we call it twice in a row the driver will not free the vectors twice. I really can't see how this patch is fixing anything as the issue here is not with MSI vectors but with misc IRQ vectors. We have a proper patch for this ready in OOT and we will upstream it soon. The problem here is that in i40e_clear_interrupt_scheme() driver calls i40e_free_misc_vector() but in case VSI setup fails misc vector is not allocated yet and we get a call trace in free_irq that we are trying to free IRQ that has not been allocated yet.
Regards
Sylwester Dziedziuch
quoted
-PJ
________________________________
Note: This email is for the confidential use of the named
addressee(s) only and may contain proprietary, confidential, or
privileged information and/or personal data. If you are not the
intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any review,
dissemination, or copying of this email is strictly prohibited, and
requested to notify the sender immediately and destroy this email and
any attachments. Email transmission cannot be guaranteed to be secure
or error-free. The Company, therefore, does not make any guarantees as
to the completeness or accuracy of this email or any attachments.
This email is for informational purposes only and does not constitute
a recommendation, offer, request, or solicitation of any kind to buy,
sell, subscribe, redeem, or perform any type of transaction of a
financial product. Personal data, as defined by applicable data
protection and privacy laws, contained in this email may be processed
by the Company, and any of its affiliated or related companies, for
legal, compliance, and/or business-related purposes. You may have
rights regarding your personal data; for information on exercising
these rights or the Company’s treatment of personal data, please email
datarequests@jumptrading.com.
-----Original Message-----
From: Dziedziuch, SylwesterX <redacted>
Sent: Tuesday, September 14, 2021 1:24 AM
To: Nguyen, Anthony L <anthony.l.nguyen@intel.com>; PJ Waskiewicz
[off-list ref]
Cc: davem@davemloft.net; pjwaskiewicz@gmail.com; Fijalkowski, Maciej
[off-list ref]; Loktionov, Aleksandr
[off-list ref]; netdev@vger.kernel.org; Brandeburg,
Jesse [off-list ref]; intel-wired-lan@lists.osuosl.org
Subject: RE: [PATCH 1/1] i40e: Avoid double IRQ free on error path in probe()
[snip]
quoted
quoted
It's been 2 weeks since I replied. Any update on this? Maciej had
already reviewed the patch, so hoping we can just move along with
it, or get something else out soon?
I'd really like this to not just fall into a void waiting for a
different patch when this fixes the issue.
Hi PJ,
I haven't seen a recent update on this. I'm asking for an update.
Otherwise, Alex and Sylwester are on this thread; perhaps they have
some info.
Thanks,
Tony
Hello,
The driver does not blindly try to free MSI-X vector twice here. This is
guarded by I40E_FLAG_MSIX_ENABLED and I40E_FLAG_MSI_ENABLED flags.
Only if those flags are set we will try to free MSI/MSI-X vectors in
i40e_reset_interrupt_capability(). Additionally
i40e_reset_interrupt_capability() clears those flags every time it is called so
even if we call it twice in a row the driver will not free the vectors twice. I
really can't see how this patch is fixing anything as the issue here is not with
MSI vectors but with misc IRQ vectors. We have a proper patch for this ready
in OOT and we will upstream it soon. The problem here is that in
i40e_clear_interrupt_scheme() driver calls i40e_free_misc_vector() but in
case VSI setup fails misc vector is not allocated yet and we get a call trace in
free_irq that we are trying to free IRQ that has not been allocated yet.
That's fine. I do see the guards for the queue vectors. I saw them before. The point is i40e_clear_interrupt_scheme() tries to free the MISC vector without guard, or without any check if it was allocated before. In the error path, it tries to free it. We get an oops for a double-free of an IRQ (also read: free an unallocated interrupt).
I know how this code works. I wrote the original reset/clear interrupt scheme functions in ixgbe, and ported them to i40e when I wrote the initial driver. We hit a problem in production, and I'm trying to patch it where we don't need to call clear_interrupt_scheme() if we fail to bring the main VSI online during probe. I don't see why this needs to be a semantic discussion over how the vectors are freed. We have a valid oops, still have it upstream.
I've also checked the OOT driver on SourceForge released in July. It has the same problem:
static void i40e_clear_interrupt_scheme(struct i40e_pf *pf)
{
int i;
i40e_free_misc_vector(pf);
i40e_put_lump(pf->irq_pile, pf->iwarp_base_vector,
I40E_IWARP_IRQ_PILE_ID);
[...]
I've also been told by some friends that no fix exists in internal git either. So please, either propose a fix, ask me to change the patch, or merge it. I'd really like to have our OS vendor be able to pick up this fix asap once it hits an upstream tree.
Cheers,
-PJ Waskiewicz
Regards
Sylwester Dziedziuch
quoted
quoted
-PJ
________________________________
Note: This email is for the confidential use of the named
addressee(s) only and may contain proprietary, confidential, or
privileged information and/or personal data. If you are not the
intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any review,
dissemination, or copying of this email is strictly prohibited, and
requested to notify the sender immediately and destroy this email
and any attachments. Email transmission cannot be guaranteed to be
secure or error-free. The Company, therefore, does not make any
guarantees as to the completeness or accuracy of this email or any
attachments.
quoted
quoted
This email is for informational purposes only and does not
constitute a recommendation, offer, request, or solicitation of any
kind to buy, sell, subscribe, redeem, or perform any type of
transaction of a financial product. Personal data, as defined by
applicable data protection and privacy laws, contained in this email
may be processed by the Company, and any of its affiliated or
related companies, for legal, compliance, and/or business-related
purposes. You may have rights regarding your personal data; for
information on exercising these rights or the Company’s treatment of
personal data, please email datarequests@jumptrading.com.
________________________________
Note: This email is for the confidential use of the named addressee(s) only and may contain proprietary, confidential, or privileged information and/or personal data. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any review, dissemination, or copying of this email is strictly prohibited, and requested to notify the sender immediately and destroy this email and any attachments. Email transmission cannot be guaranteed to be secure or error-free. The Company, therefore, does not make any guarantees as to the completeness or accuracy of this email or any attachments. This email is for informational purposes only and does not constitute a recommendation, offer, request, or solicitation of any kind to buy, sell, subscribe, redeem, or perform any type of transaction of a financial product. Personal data, as defined by applicable data protection and privacy laws, contained in this email may be processed by the Company, and any of its affiliated or related companies, for legal, compliance, and/or business-related purposes. You may have rights regarding your personal data; for information on exercising these rights or the Company’s treatment of personal data, please email datarequests@jumptrading.com.
-----Original Message-----
From: PJ Waskiewicz <redacted>
Sent: Tuesday, September 14, 2021 11:41 PM
To: Dziedziuch, SylwesterX <redacted>; Nguyen,
Anthony L [off-list ref]
Cc: davem@davemloft.net; pjwaskiewicz@gmail.com; Fijalkowski, Maciej
[off-list ref]; Loktionov, Aleksandr
[off-list ref]; netdev@vger.kernel.org; Brandeburg, Jesse
[off-list ref]; intel-wired-lan@lists.osuosl.org;
Machnikowski, Maciej [off-list ref]
Subject: RE: [PATCH 1/1] i40e: Avoid double IRQ free on error path in probe()
Hi Sylwester,
quoted
-----Original Message-----
From: Dziedziuch, SylwesterX <redacted>
Sent: Tuesday, September 14, 2021 1:24 AM
To: Nguyen, Anthony L <anthony.l.nguyen@intel.com>; PJ Waskiewicz
[off-list ref]
Cc: davem@davemloft.net; pjwaskiewicz@gmail.com; Fijalkowski, Maciej
[off-list ref]; Loktionov, Aleksandr
[off-list ref]; netdev@vger.kernel.org; Brandeburg,
Jesse [off-list ref]; intel-wired-lan@lists.osuosl.org
Subject: RE: [PATCH 1/1] i40e: Avoid double IRQ free on error path in
probe()
[snip]
quoted
quoted
quoted
It's been 2 weeks since I replied. Any update on this? Maciej
had already reviewed the patch, so hoping we can just move along
with it, or get something else out soon?
I'd really like this to not just fall into a void waiting for a
different patch when this fixes the issue.
Hi PJ,
I haven't seen a recent update on this. I'm asking for an update.
Otherwise, Alex and Sylwester are on this thread; perhaps they have
some info.
Thanks,
Tony
Hello,
The driver does not blindly try to free MSI-X vector twice here. This
is guarded by I40E_FLAG_MSIX_ENABLED and I40E_FLAG_MSI_ENABLED
flags.
quoted
Only if those flags are set we will try to free MSI/MSI-X vectors in
i40e_reset_interrupt_capability(). Additionally
i40e_reset_interrupt_capability() clears those flags every time it is
called so even if we call it twice in a row the driver will not free
the vectors twice. I really can't see how this patch is fixing
anything as the issue here is not with MSI vectors but with misc IRQ
vectors. We have a proper patch for this ready in OOT and we will
upstream it soon. The problem here is that in
i40e_clear_interrupt_scheme() driver calls i40e_free_misc_vector() but
in case VSI setup fails misc vector is not allocated yet and we get a
call trace in free_irq that we are trying to free IRQ that has not been
allocated yet.
That's fine. I do see the guards for the queue vectors. I saw them before. The
point is i40e_clear_interrupt_scheme() tries to free the MISC vector without
guard, or without any check if it was allocated before. In the error path, it tries
to free it. We get an oops for a double-free of an IRQ (also read: free an
unallocated interrupt).
I know how this code works. I wrote the original reset/clear interrupt scheme
functions in ixgbe, and ported them to i40e when I wrote the initial driver. We
hit a problem in production, and I'm trying to patch it where we don't need to
call clear_interrupt_scheme() if we fail to bring the main VSI online during
probe. I don't see why this needs to be a semantic discussion over how the
vectors are freed. We have a valid oops, still have it upstream.
I've also checked the OOT driver on SourceForge released in July. It has the
same problem:
static void i40e_clear_interrupt_scheme(struct i40e_pf *pf) {
int i;
i40e_free_misc_vector(pf);
i40e_put_lump(pf->irq_pile, pf->iwarp_base_vector,
I40E_IWARP_IRQ_PILE_ID); [...]
I've also been told by some friends that no fix exists in internal git either. So
please, either propose a fix, ask me to change the patch, or merge it. I'd really
like to have our OS vendor be able to pick up this fix asap once it hits an
upstream tree.
Cheers,
-PJ Waskiewicz
You are right the problem is with misc IRQ vector but as far as I can see this patch only moves i40e_reset_interrupt_capability() outside of i40e_clear_interrupt_scheme(). It does not fix the problem of i40e_free_misc_vector() on unallocated vector in error path. We have a proper fix for this that adds additional check for __I40E_MISC_IRQ_REQUESTED bit to i40e_free_misc_vector():
if (pf->flags & I40E_FLAG_MSIX_ENABLED && pf->msix_entries &&
test_bit(__I40E_MISC_IRQ_REQUESTED, pf->state)) {
This bit is set only if misc vector was properly allocated. The patch will be on intel-wired soon.
quoted
Regards
Sylwester Dziedziuch
quoted
quoted
-PJ
________________________________
Note: This email is for the confidential use of the named
addressee(s) only and may contain proprietary, confidential, or
privileged information and/or personal data. If you are not the
intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any review,
dissemination, or copying of this email is strictly prohibited,
and requested to notify the sender immediately and destroy this
email and any attachments. Email transmission cannot be guaranteed
to be secure or error-free. The Company, therefore, does not make
any guarantees as to the completeness or accuracy of this email or
any
attachments.
quoted
quoted
This email is for informational purposes only and does not
constitute a recommendation, offer, request, or solicitation of
any kind to buy, sell, subscribe, redeem, or perform any type of
transaction of a financial product. Personal data, as defined by
applicable data protection and privacy laws, contained in this
email may be processed by the Company, and any of its affiliated
or related companies, for legal, compliance, and/or
business-related purposes. You may have rights regarding your
personal data; for information on exercising these rights or the
Company’s treatment of personal data, please email
datarequests@jumptrading.com.
________________________________
Note: This email is for the confidential use of the named addressee(s) only and
may contain proprietary, confidential, or privileged information and/or
personal data. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified
that any review, dissemination, or copying of this email is strictly prohibited,
and requested to notify the sender immediately and destroy this email and
any attachments. Email transmission cannot be guaranteed to be secure or
error-free. The Company, therefore, does not make any guarantees as to the
completeness or accuracy of this email or any attachments. This email is for
informational purposes only and does not constitute a recommendation, offer,
request, or solicitation of any kind to buy, sell, subscribe, redeem, or perform
any type of transaction of a financial product. Personal data, as defined by
applicable data protection and privacy laws, contained in this email may be
processed by the Company, and any of its affiliated or related companies, for
legal, compliance, and/or business-related purposes. You may have rights
regarding your personal data; for information on exercising these rights or the
Company’s treatment of personal data, please email
datarequests@jumptrading.com.
You are right the problem is with misc IRQ vector but as far as I can see this
patch only moves i40e_reset_interrupt_capability() outside of
i40e_clear_interrupt_scheme(). It does not fix the problem of
i40e_free_misc_vector() on unallocated vector in error path. We have a
proper fix for this that adds additional check for
__I40E_MISC_IRQ_REQUESTED bit to i40e_free_misc_vector():
It does fix the problem if you call the function when the MISC vector hasn't been allocated. Yes, I moved reset_interrupt_capability() out so it could be separately called in the probe() error cleanup path.
if (pf->flags & I40E_FLAG_MSIX_ENABLED && pf->msix_entries &&
test_bit(__I40E_MISC_IRQ_REQUESTED, pf->state)) {
This bit is set only if misc vector was properly allocated. The patch will be on
intel-wired soon.
This isn't even in the OOT driver from SourceForge. And even if you used that to guard freeing the vector or not, the first bit of that function is still writing to a register to disable that cause in the hardware:
static void i40e_free_misc_vector(struct i40e_pf *pf)
{
/* Disable ICR 0 */
wr32(&pf->hw, I40E_PFINT_ICR0_ENA, 0);
i40e_flush(&pf->hw);
Would you still want to do that blindly if the vector wasn't allocated in the first place? Seems excessive, but it'd be harmless. Seems like not calling this function altogether would be cleaner and generate less MMIO activity if the MISC vector wasn't allocated at all and we're falling out of an error path...
I am really at a loss here. This is clearly broken. We have an Oops. We get these occasionally on boot, and it's really annoying to deal with on production machines. What is the definition of "soon" here for this new patch to show up? My distro vendor would love to pull some sort of fix in so we can get it into our build images, and stop having this problem. My patch fixes the immediate problem. If you don't like the patch (which it appears you don't; that's fine), then stalling or saying a different fix is coming "soon" is really not a great support model. This would be great to merge, and then if you want to make it "better" on your schedule, it's open source, and you can submit a patch. Or I'll be happy to respin the patch, but still calling free_misc_vector() in an error path when the MISC vector was never allocated seems like a bad design decision to me.
-PJ
________________________________
Note: This email is for the confidential use of the named addressee(s) only and may contain proprietary, confidential, or privileged information and/or personal data. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any review, dissemination, or copying of this email is strictly prohibited, and requested to notify the sender immediately and destroy this email and any attachments. Email transmission cannot be guaranteed to be secure or error-free. The Company, therefore, does not make any guarantees as to the completeness or accuracy of this email or any attachments. This email is for informational purposes only and does not constitute a recommendation, offer, request, or solicitation of any kind to buy, sell, subscribe, redeem, or perform any type of transaction of a financial product. Personal data, as defined by applicable data protection and privacy laws, contained in this email may be processed by the Company, and any of its affiliated or related companies, for legal, compliance, and/or business-related purposes. You may have rights regarding your personal data; for information on exercising these rights or the Company’s treatment of personal data, please email datarequests@jumptrading.com.
-----Original Message-----
From: PJ Waskiewicz <redacted>
Sent: Saturday, September 18, 2021 4:02 AM
To: Dziedziuch, SylwesterX <redacted>; Nguyen,
Anthony L [off-list ref]
Cc: davem@davemloft.net; pjwaskiewicz@gmail.com; Fijalkowski, Maciej
[off-list ref]; Loktionov, Aleksandr
[off-list ref]; netdev@vger.kernel.org; Brandeburg, Jesse
[off-list ref]; intel-wired-lan@lists.osuosl.org;
Machnikowski, Maciej [off-list ref]
Subject: RE: [PATCH 1/1] i40e: Avoid double IRQ free on error path in probe()
Hi Sylwester,
quoted
You are right the problem is with misc IRQ vector but as far as I can
see this patch only moves i40e_reset_interrupt_capability() outside of
i40e_clear_interrupt_scheme(). It does not fix the problem of
i40e_free_misc_vector() on unallocated vector in error path. We have a
proper fix for this that adds additional check for
__I40E_MISC_IRQ_REQUESTED bit to i40e_free_misc_vector():
It does fix the problem if you call the function when the MISC vector hasn't
been allocated. Yes, I moved reset_interrupt_capability() out so it could be
separately called in the probe() error cleanup path.
quoted
if (pf->flags & I40E_FLAG_MSIX_ENABLED && pf->msix_entries &&
test_bit(__I40E_MISC_IRQ_REQUESTED, pf->state)) {
This bit is set only if misc vector was properly allocated. The patch
will be on intel-wired soon.
This isn't even in the OOT driver from SourceForge. And even if you used that
to guard freeing the vector or not, the first bit of that function is still writing to
a register to disable that cause in the hardware:
static void i40e_free_misc_vector(struct i40e_pf *pf) {
/* Disable ICR 0 */
wr32(&pf->hw, I40E_PFINT_ICR0_ENA, 0);
i40e_flush(&pf->hw);
Would you still want to do that blindly if the vector wasn't allocated in the first
place? Seems excessive, but it'd be harmless. Seems like not calling this
function altogether would be cleaner and generate less MMIO activity if the
MISC vector wasn't allocated at all and we're falling out of an error path...
I am really at a loss here. This is clearly broken. We have an Oops. We get
these occasionally on boot, and it's really annoying to deal with on production
machines. What is the definition of "soon" here for this new patch to show
up? My distro vendor would love to pull some sort of fix in so we can get it
into our build images, and stop having this problem. My patch fixes the
immediate problem. If you don't like the patch (which it appears you don't;
that's fine), then stalling or saying a different fix is coming "soon" is really not a
great support model. This would be great to merge, and then if you want to
make it "better" on your schedule, it's open source, and you can submit a
patch. Or I'll be happy to respin the patch, but still calling free_misc_vector()
in an error path when the MISC vector was never allocated seems like a bad
design decision to me.
-PJ
I totally agree that we shouldn’t call free_misc_vector if misc vector wasn't allocated yet but to me this is not what your patch is doing. free_misc_vector() is called in clear_interrupt_scheme not reset_interrupt_capability(). In your patch clear_interrupt_scheme() will still be called when pf switch setup fails in i40e_probe() and it will still call free_misc_vector on unallocated misc IRQ. Other proper way to fix this would be moving free_misc_vector() out of clear_interrupt_scheme() and calling it separately when misc vector was really allocated. As for the hw register being written in our patch as you said it's harmless. The patch we've prepared should be on iwl today.
BR
Sylwester Dziedziuch
________________________________
Note: This email is for the confidential use of the named addressee(s) only and
may contain proprietary, confidential, or privileged information and/or
personal data. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified
that any review, dissemination, or copying of this email is strictly prohibited,
and requested to notify the sender immediately and destroy this email and
any attachments. Email transmission cannot be guaranteed to be secure or
error-free. The Company, therefore, does not make any guarantees as to the
completeness or accuracy of this email or any attachments. This email is for
informational purposes only and does not constitute a recommendation, offer,
request, or solicitation of any kind to buy, sell, subscribe, redeem, or perform
any type of transaction of a financial product. Personal data, as defined by
applicable data protection and privacy laws, contained in this email may be
processed by the Company, and any of its affiliated or related companies, for
legal, compliance, and/or business-related purposes. You may have rights
regarding your personal data; for information on exercising these rights or the
Company’s treatment of personal data, please email
datarequests@jumptrading.com.
static void i40e_free_misc_vector(struct i40e_pf *pf) {
/* Disable ICR 0 */
wr32(&pf->hw, I40E_PFINT_ICR0_ENA, 0);
i40e_flush(&pf->hw);
Would you still want to do that blindly if the vector wasn't allocated
in the first place? Seems excessive, but it'd be harmless. Seems
like not calling this function altogether would be cleaner and
generate less MMIO activity if the MISC vector wasn't allocated at all and
we're falling out of an error path...
quoted
I am really at a loss here. This is clearly broken. We have an Oops.
We get these occasionally on boot, and it's really annoying to deal
with on production machines. What is the definition of "soon" here
for this new patch to show up? My distro vendor would love to pull
some sort of fix in so we can get it into our build images, and stop
having this problem. My patch fixes the immediate problem. If you
don't like the patch (which it appears you don't; that's fine), then
stalling or saying a different fix is coming "soon" is really not a
great support model. This would be great to merge, and then if you
want to make it "better" on your schedule, it's open source, and you
can submit a patch. Or I'll be happy to respin the patch, but still
calling free_misc_vector() in an error path when the MISC vector was
never allocated seems like a bad design decision to me.
quoted
-PJ
I totally agree that we shouldn’t call free_misc_vector if misc vector wasn't
allocated yet but to me this is not what your patch is doing.
free_misc_vector() is called in clear_interrupt_scheme not
reset_interrupt_capability(). In your patch clear_interrupt_scheme() will still
be called when pf switch setup fails in i40e_probe() and it will still call
free_misc_vector on unallocated misc IRQ. Other proper way to fix this
would be moving free_misc_vector() out of clear_interrupt_scheme() and
calling it separately when misc vector was really allocated. As for the hw
register being written in our patch as you said it's harmless. The patch we've
prepared should be on iwl today.
Ok, I see the patch on IWL....let's discuss....
Just above, I pointed out that if the MISC vector hasn't been allocated at all, then we don't want to call free_misc_vector() at all. That would also mean the suggestion to check the atomic state bit to avoid the actual free would *still* have the code call free_misc_vector(), and only skip the actual free (after doing an unnecessary MMIO write and then read to flush). I pointed out that wouldn't be ideal, and you, just above, agreed. Yet, the fix you guys submitted to IWL does exactly that. So are we just saying things to bury this thread and hope it goes away, or just willfully not doing what we agreed on? It's pretty disheartening to consider feedback, agree to it, then completely ignore it. That's not how open source works...
Also, regardless how you guys want the code to work, it's usually good form to include a "Reported-by:" in a patch if you're deciding not to take a proposed patch. It's even better form to include the Oops that was reported in the first patch, since that makes things like ${SEARCH_ENGINE} work for people running into the same issue have a chance to find a solution. Not doing either of these when someone else has done work to identify an issue, test a fix, and propose it, is not a good way to attract more people to work on this driver in the future.
If we wanted to do something where free_misc_vector() isn't called if the state flag isn't set, then why not something like this, which would keep in the spirit of what we agreed on above:
@@ -4868,7 +4868,9 @@ static void i40e_clear_interrupt_scheme(struct i40e_pf *pf){inti;-i40e_free_misc_vector(pf);+/* Only attempt to free the misc vector if it's already allocated */+if(test_bit(__I40E_MISC_IRQ_REQUESTED,pf->state))+i40e_free_misc_vector(pf);i40e_put_lump(pf->irq_pile,pf->iwarp_base_vector,I40E_IWARP_IRQ_PILE_ID);-PJ
________________________________
Note: This email is for the confidential use of the named addressee(s) only and may contain proprietary, confidential, or privileged information and/or personal data. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any review, dissemination, or copying of this email is strictly prohibited, and requested to notify the sender immediately and destroy this email and any attachments. Email transmission cannot be guaranteed to be secure or error-free. The Company, therefore, does not make any guarantees as to the completeness or accuracy of this email or any attachments. This email is for informational purposes only and does not constitute a recommendation, offer, request, or solicitation of any kind to buy, sell, subscribe, redeem, or perform any type of transaction of a financial product. Personal data, as defined by applicable data protection and privacy laws, contained in this email may be processed by the Company, and any of its affiliated or related companies, for legal, compliance, and/or business-related purposes. You may have rights regarding your personal data; for information on exercising these rights or the Company’s treatment of personal data, please email datarequests@jumptrading.com.
Hi Tony and Sylwester,
Any updates/comments on my reply from a few days ago on this?
-PJ
quoted hunk
quoted
quoted
static void i40e_free_misc_vector(struct i40e_pf *pf) {
/* Disable ICR 0 */
wr32(&pf->hw, I40E_PFINT_ICR0_ENA, 0);
i40e_flush(&pf->hw);
Would you still want to do that blindly if the vector wasn't
allocated in the first place? Seems excessive, but it'd be
harmless. Seems like not calling this function altogether would be
cleaner and generate less MMIO activity if the MISC vector wasn't
allocated at all and
we're falling out of an error path...
quoted
I am really at a loss here. This is clearly broken. We have an Oops.
We get these occasionally on boot, and it's really annoying to deal
with on production machines. What is the definition of "soon" here
for this new patch to show up? My distro vendor would love to pull
some sort of fix in so we can get it into our build images, and stop
having this problem. My patch fixes the immediate problem. If you
don't like the patch (which it appears you don't; that's fine), then
stalling or saying a different fix is coming "soon" is really not a
great support model. This would be great to merge, and then if you
want to make it "better" on your schedule, it's open source, and you
can submit a patch. Or I'll be happy to respin the patch, but still
calling free_misc_vector() in an error path when the MISC vector was
never allocated seems like a bad design decision to me.
quoted
-PJ
I totally agree that we shouldn’t call free_misc_vector if misc vector
wasn't allocated yet but to me this is not what your patch is doing.
free_misc_vector() is called in clear_interrupt_scheme not
reset_interrupt_capability(). In your patch clear_interrupt_scheme()
will still be called when pf switch setup fails in i40e_probe() and it
will still call free_misc_vector on unallocated misc IRQ. Other proper
way to fix this would be moving free_misc_vector() out of
clear_interrupt_scheme() and calling it separately when misc vector
was really allocated. As for the hw register being written in our
patch as you said it's harmless. The patch we've prepared should be on iwl
today.
quoted
Ok, I see the patch on IWL....let's discuss....
Just above, I pointed out that if the MISC vector hasn't been allocated at all,
then we don't want to call free_misc_vector() at all. That would also mean
the suggestion to check the atomic state bit to avoid the actual free would
*still* have the code call free_misc_vector(), and only skip the actual free
(after doing an unnecessary MMIO write and then read to flush). I pointed
out that wouldn't be ideal, and you, just above, agreed. Yet, the fix you guys
submitted to IWL does exactly that. So are we just saying things to bury this
thread and hope it goes away, or just willfully not doing what we agreed on?
It's pretty disheartening to consider feedback, agree to it, then completely
ignore it. That's not how open source works...
Also, regardless how you guys want the code to work, it's usually good form
to include a "Reported-by:" in a patch if you're deciding not to take a
proposed patch. It's even better form to include the Oops that was reported
in the first patch, since that makes things like ${SEARCH_ENGINE} work for
people running into the same issue have a chance to find a solution. Not
doing either of these when someone else has done work to identify an issue,
test a fix, and propose it, is not a good way to attract more people to work on
this driver in the future.
If we wanted to do something where free_misc_vector() isn't called if the
state flag isn't set, then why not something like this, which would keep in the
spirit of what we agreed on above:
i40e_pf *pf) {
int i;
- i40e_free_misc_vector(pf);
+ /* Only attempt to free the misc vector if it's already allocated */
+ if (test_bit(__I40E_MISC_IRQ_REQUESTED, pf->state))
+ i40e_free_misc_vector(pf);
i40e_put_lump(pf->irq_pile, pf->iwarp_base_vector,
I40E_IWARP_IRQ_PILE_ID);
-PJ
________________________________
Note: This email is for the confidential use of the named addressee(s) only and may contain proprietary, confidential, or privileged information and/or personal data. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any review, dissemination, or copying of this email is strictly prohibited, and requested to notify the sender immediately and destroy this email and any attachments. Email transmission cannot be guaranteed to be secure or error-free. The Company, therefore, does not make any guarantees as to the completeness or accuracy of this email or any attachments. This email is for informational purposes only and does not constitute a recommendation, offer, request, or solicitation of any kind to buy, sell, subscribe, redeem, or perform any type of transaction of a financial product. Personal data, as defined by applicable data protection and privacy laws, contained in this email may be processed by the Company, and any of its affiliated or related companies, for legal, compliance, and/or business-related purposes. You may have rights regarding your personal data; for information on exercising these rights or the Company’s treatment of personal data, please email datarequests@jumptrading.com.
Hello PJ,
Sorry for the late response. I am applying your suggestions to the patch. The updated version will be on IWL in a moment.
-----Original Message-----
From: PJ Waskiewicz <redacted>
Sent: Thursday, September 23, 2021 5:17 PM
To: Dziedziuch, SylwesterX <redacted>; Nguyen,
Anthony L [off-list ref]
Cc: davem@davemloft.net; pjwaskiewicz@gmail.com; Fijalkowski, Maciej
[off-list ref]; Loktionov, Aleksandr
[off-list ref]; netdev@vger.kernel.org; Brandeburg, Jesse
[off-list ref]; intel-wired-lan@lists.osuosl.org;
Machnikowski, Maciej [off-list ref]
Subject: RE: [PATCH 1/1] i40e: Avoid double IRQ free on error path in probe()
quoted
quoted
Hello PJ,
Hello,
Hi Tony and Sylwester,
Any updates/comments on my reply from a few days ago on this?
-PJ
quoted
quoted
quoted
static void i40e_free_misc_vector(struct i40e_pf *pf) {
/* Disable ICR 0 */
wr32(&pf->hw, I40E_PFINT_ICR0_ENA, 0);
i40e_flush(&pf->hw);
Would you still want to do that blindly if the vector wasn't
allocated in the first place? Seems excessive, but it'd be
harmless. Seems like not calling this function altogether would
be cleaner and generate less MMIO activity if the MISC vector
wasn't allocated at all and
we're falling out of an error path...
quoted
I am really at a loss here. This is clearly broken. We have an Oops.
We get these occasionally on boot, and it's really annoying to
deal with on production machines. What is the definition of
"soon" here for this new patch to show up? My distro vendor would
love to pull some sort of fix in so we can get it into our build
images, and stop having this problem. My patch fixes the
immediate problem. If you don't like the patch (which it appears
you don't; that's fine), then stalling or saying a different fix
is coming "soon" is really not a great support model. This would
be great to merge, and then if you want to make it "better" on
your schedule, it's open source, and you can submit a patch. Or
I'll be happy to respin the patch, but still calling
free_misc_vector() in an error path when the MISC vector was
never allocated seems like a bad design decision to me.
quoted
-PJ
I totally agree that we shouldn’t call free_misc_vector if misc
vector wasn't allocated yet but to me this is not what your patch is doing.
free_misc_vector() is called in clear_interrupt_scheme not
reset_interrupt_capability(). In your patch clear_interrupt_scheme()
will still be called when pf switch setup fails in i40e_probe() and
it will still call free_misc_vector on unallocated misc IRQ. Other
proper way to fix this would be moving free_misc_vector() out of
clear_interrupt_scheme() and calling it separately when misc vector
was really allocated. As for the hw register being written in our
patch as you said it's harmless. The patch we've prepared should be
on iwl
today.
quoted
Ok, I see the patch on IWL....let's discuss....
Just above, I pointed out that if the MISC vector hasn't been
allocated at all, then we don't want to call free_misc_vector() at
all. That would also mean the suggestion to check the atomic state
bit to avoid the actual free would
*still* have the code call free_misc_vector(), and only skip the
actual free (after doing an unnecessary MMIO write and then read to
flush). I pointed out that wouldn't be ideal, and you, just above,
agreed. Yet, the fix you guys submitted to IWL does exactly that. So
are we just saying things to bury this thread and hope it goes away, or just
willfully not doing what we agreed on?
quoted
It's pretty disheartening to consider feedback, agree to it, then
completely ignore it. That's not how open source works...
Also, regardless how you guys want the code to work, it's usually good
form to include a "Reported-by:" in a patch if you're deciding not to
take a proposed patch. It's even better form to include the Oops that
was reported in the first patch, since that makes things like
${SEARCH_ENGINE} work for people running into the same issue have a
chance to find a solution. Not doing either of these when someone
else has done work to identify an issue, test a fix, and propose it,
is not a good way to attract more people to work on this driver in the future.
If we wanted to do something where free_misc_vector() isn't called if
the state flag isn't set, then why not something like this, which
would keep in the spirit of what we agreed on above:
i40e_pf *pf) {
int i;
- i40e_free_misc_vector(pf);
+ /* Only attempt to free the misc vector if it's already allocated */
+ if (test_bit(__I40E_MISC_IRQ_REQUESTED, pf->state))
+ i40e_free_misc_vector(pf);
i40e_put_lump(pf->irq_pile, pf->iwarp_base_vector,
I40E_IWARP_IRQ_PILE_ID);
-PJ
________________________________
Note: This email is for the confidential use of the named addressee(s) only and
may contain proprietary, confidential, or privileged information and/or
personal data. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified
that any review, dissemination, or copying of this email is strictly prohibited,
and requested to notify the sender immediately and destroy this email and
any attachments. Email transmission cannot be guaranteed to be secure or
error-free. The Company, therefore, does not make any guarantees as to the
completeness or accuracy of this email or any attachments. This email is for
informational purposes only and does not constitute a recommendation, offer,
request, or solicitation of any kind to buy, sell, subscribe, redeem, or perform
any type of transaction of a financial product. Personal data, as defined by
applicable data protection and privacy laws, contained in this email may be
processed by the Company, and any of its affiliated or related companies, for
legal, compliance, and/or business-related purposes. You may have rights
regarding your personal data; for information on exercising these rights or the
Company’s treatment of personal data, please email
datarequests@jumptrading.com.