Re: [PATCH net] eth: fbnic: Avoid rounding zero ring sizes
From: netdev-bot+sashiko@kernel.org
Date: 2026-09-18 06:14:30
Also in:
lkml
Thank you for your contribution! Sashiko AI review found 1 potential issue(s) to consider: Critical: 0 · High: 0 · Medium: 1 · Low: 0 - [Medium] In fbnic_set_ringparam() (drivers/net/ethernet/meta/fbnic/fbnic_ethtool.c), moving the minimum-… -- eth: fbnic: Avoid rounding zero ring sizes The patch moves the roundup_pow_of_two() normalization of the requested ring sizes in fbnic_set_ringparam() to after the minimum-size checks, so that a zero ring size coming from userspace is rejected instead of being fed to roundup_pow_of_two().
quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/meta/fbnic/fbnic_ethtool.c b/drivers/net/ethernet/meta/fbnic/fbnic_ethtool.c index 0e47088ec44ba..8954fcd08cb31 100644 --- a/drivers/net/ethernet/meta/fbnic/fbnic_ethtool.c +++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/meta/fbnic/fbnic_ethtool.c@@ -334,11 +334,6 @@ fbnic_set_ringparam(struct net_device *netdev, struct ethtool_ringparam *ring, struct fbnic_net *clone; int err; - ring->rx_pending = roundup_pow_of_two(ring->rx_pending); - ring->rx_mini_pending = roundup_pow_of_two(ring->rx_mini_pending); - ring->rx_jumbo_pending = roundup_pow_of_two(ring->rx_jumbo_pending); - ring->tx_pending = roundup_pow_of_two(ring->tx_pending); - /* These are absolute minimums allowing the device and driver to operate * but not necessarily guarantee reasonable performance. Settings below * Rx queue size of 128 and BDQs smaller than 64 are likely suboptimal
[Severity: Medium]
With the roundup moved below the checks, the minimum-size test in
fbnic_set_ringparam() now compares the raw userspace request rather than
the rounded value. Does this reject nonzero sizes that used to be
accepted?
The effective minimums all evaluate to 64:
drivers/net/ethernet/meta/fbnic/fbnic_txrx.h:
#define FBNIC_TX_DESC_MIN roundup_pow_of_two(FBNIC_TX_DESC_WAKEUP)
#define FBNIC_RX_DESC_MIN roundup_pow_of_two(FBNIC_MAX_RX_PKT_DESC * 2)
#define FBNIC_QUEUE_SIZE_MIN 64u
FBNIC_RX_DESC_MIN is 16 and FBNIC_TX_DESC_MIN is 64 for the common
MAX_SKB_FRAGS == 17, so max(FBNIC_QUEUE_SIZE_MIN, ...) is 64 in every
case.
Previously a request like "ethtool -G ethX tx 40" was rounded to 64 first
and then passed the check, ending up with a 64-entry ring. Now the check
sees 40 and returns -EINVAL with "requested ring size too small". The
same applies to any rx, rx-mini or rx-jumbo value in 33..63.
The ethtool core does not enforce a minimum, it only validates the maxima:
net/ethtool/rings.c:ethnl_set_rings() {
...
/* ensure new ring parameters are within limits */
if (ringparam.rx_pending > ringparam.rx_max_pending)
...
}
and ethtool_set_ringparam() in net/ethtool/ioctl.c does the same, so those
values do reach the driver unchanged.
/* These are absolute minimums allowing the device and driver to operate
* but not necessarily guarantee reasonable performance. Settings below
* Rx queue size of 128 and BDQs smaller than 64 are likely suboptimal
* at best.
*/
if (ring->rx_pending < max(FBNIC_QUEUE_SIZE_MIN, FBNIC_RX_DESC_MIN) ||
ring->rx_mini_pending < FBNIC_QUEUE_SIZE_MIN ||
ring->rx_jumbo_pending < FBNIC_QUEUE_SIZE_MIN ||
ring->tx_pending < max(FBNIC_QUEUE_SIZE_MIN, FBNIC_TX_DESC_MIN)) {
NL_SET_ERR_MSG_MOD(extack, "requested ring size too small");
return -EINVAL;
}quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
@@ -368,6 +363,11 @@ fbnic_set_ringparam(struct net_device *netdev, struct ethtool_ringparam *ring, return -EINVAL; } + ring->rx_pending = roundup_pow_of_two(ring->rx_pending); + ring->rx_mini_pending = roundup_pow_of_two(ring->rx_mini_pending); + ring->rx_jumbo_pending = roundup_pow_of_two(ring->rx_jumbo_pending); + ring->tx_pending = roundup_pow_of_two(ring->tx_pending); +
[Severity: Medium]
Was the reorder needed to reach the stated goal? The commit message says
only:
Validate the requested sizes before rounding them so zero is rejected
deterministically.
It does not mention that previously accepted non-power-of-two sizes below
the 64-descriptor minimum now start failing with -EINVAL. Since the patch
carries a Fixes: tag and is therefore a stable-backport candidate, could
the changelog spell out that user-visible change?
Would an explicit rejection of zero, or clamping in place with
max(min, roundup_pow_of_two(...)), address the undefined
roundup_pow_of_two(0) without altering which nonzero requests are
accepted?
if (!netif_running(netdev)) {
fbnic_set_rings(fbn, ring, kernel_ring);
return 0;-- Sashiko AI review · https://netdev-ai.bots.linux.dev/sashiko/#/patchset/20260915181229.4159158-1-bjorn%40kernel.org