Re: [net-next,V5,11/15] net/mlx5: Expose a function to clear a vport's parent
flat view
From: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>
Date: 2026-01-22 03:42:29
Also in:
linux-doc, linux-rdma, lkml
On Wed, 21 Jan 2026 19:40:01 -0800 Jakub Kicinski wrote:
This is an AI-generated review of your patch. The human sending this email has considered the AI review valid, or at least plausible. For local reproduction steps see https://netdev-ai.bots.linux.dev/ai-local.html --- net/mlx5e: Skip ESN replay window setup for IPsec crypto offload This patch fixes a WARN_ON being triggered for crypto offload by adding a check to skip the replay window setup when the offload type is not XFRM_DEV_OFFLOAD_PACKET.quoted
diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/mellanox/mlx5/core/en_accel/ipsec.c b/drivers/net/ethernet/mellanox/mlx5/core/en_accel/ipsec.c index a8fb4bec369c..63aa23f5c49e 100644 --- a/drivers/net/ethernet/mellanox/mlx5/core/en_accel/ipsec.c +++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/mellanox/mlx5/core/en_accel/ipsec.c@@ -430,7 +430,8 @@ void mlx5e_ipsec_build_accel_xfrm_attrs(struct mlx5e_ipsec_sa_entry *sa_entry, attrs->replay_esn.esn = sa_entry->esn_state.esn; attrs->replay_esn.esn_msb = sa_entry->esn_state.esn_msb; attrs->replay_esn.overlap = sa_entry->esn_state.overlap; - if (attrs->dir == XFRM_DEV_OFFLOAD_OUT) + if (attrs->dir == XFRM_DEV_OFFLOAD_OUT || + attrs->type != XFRM_DEV_OFFLOAD_PACKET) goto skip_replay_window;At this point in mlx5e_ipsec_build_accel_xfrm_attrs(), attrs->type has not been initialized yet. The function starts with memset(attrs, 0, ...) which sets attrs->type to 0 (XFRM_DEV_OFFLOAD_UNSPECIFIED). The assignment attrs->type = x->xso.type happens later after the skip_replay_window label. This means the condition attrs->type != XFRM_DEV_OFFLOAD_PACKET evaluates as 0 != 2 which is always true. As a result, the replay window setup will be skipped for all inbound configurations, not just crypto offload. Should this check use x->xso.type instead of attrs->type, or should attrs->type be assigned earlier in the function before this check?
Herm, something misfired here, this is a review for the series of fixes posted on the same day, not for the rate scheduling.