On 9/16/2019 4:45 PM, Andrew Rybchenko wrote:
> On 9/16/19 4:22 PM, Ferruh Yigit wrote:
>> On 9/13/2019 8:57 PM, Andrew Rybchenko wrote:
>>> On 9/13/19 7:34 PM, Ferruh Yigit wrote:
>>>> On 9/13/2019 5:05 PM, Andrew Rybchenko wrote:
>>>>> On 9/13/19 6:39 PM, Ferruh Yigit wrote:
>>>>>> On 9/9/2019 12:58 PM, Andrew Rybchenko wrote:
>>>>>>> Enabling/disabling of promiscuous mode is not always successful and
>>>>>>> it should be taken into account to be able to handle it properly.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> When correct return status is unclear from driver code, -EAGAIN is used.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Andrew Rybchenko <arybche...@solarflare.com>
>>>>>> <...>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> diff --git a/drivers/net/tap/rte_eth_tap.c
>>>>>>> b/drivers/net/tap/rte_eth_tap.c
>>>>>>> index f85458c3cd..41612ce838 100644
>>>>>>> --- a/drivers/net/tap/rte_eth_tap.c
>>>>>>> +++ b/drivers/net/tap/rte_eth_tap.c
>>>>>>> @@ -1100,28 +1100,60 @@ tap_link_update(struct rte_eth_dev *dev, int
>>>>>>> wait_to_complete __rte_unused)
>>>>>>> return 0;
>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> -static void
>>>>>>> +static int
>>>>>>> tap_promisc_enable(struct rte_eth_dev *dev)
>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>> struct pmd_internals *pmd = dev->data->dev_private;
>>>>>>> struct ifreq ifr = { .ifr_flags = IFF_PROMISC };
>>>>>>> + int ret;
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> - dev->data->promiscuous = 1;
>>>>>>> - tap_ioctl(pmd, SIOCSIFFLAGS, &ifr, 1, LOCAL_AND_REMOTE);
>>>>>>> - if (pmd->remote_if_index && !pmd->flow_isolate)
>>>>>>> - tap_flow_implicit_create(pmd, TAP_REMOTE_PROMISC);
>>>>>>> + ret = tap_ioctl(pmd, SIOCSIFFLAGS, &ifr, 1, LOCAL_AND_REMOTE);
>>>>>>> + if (ret != 0)
>>>>>>> + return ret;
>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>> + if (pmd->remote_if_index && !pmd->flow_isolate) {
>>>>>>> + dev->data->promiscuous = 1;
>>>>>> I think PMD shouldn't be setting this variable, it is already set by the
>>>>>> API.
>>>>>> I quickly checked if an internal function requires this but it looks
>>>>>> like it has
>>>>>> been set by mistake, I think we can remove this.
>>>>> It is set after callback in the case of enable.
>>>> I see, but do we need it enabled earlier?
>>> Not sure that I understand the question, but tap_ioctl() does not use it.
>>> So, it is safe to move just before tap_flow_implicit_create().
>> I think 'dev->data->promiscuous' shouldn't be set be PMD dev_ops, and API
>> already does it. Is there a specific reason in tap to set this in dev_ops? If
>> not can we remove setting 'dev->data->promiscuous' from dev_ops?
>
> The problem is the following: right now enable function sets
> data->promiscuous after driver callback execution, some drivers
> definitely use the variable internally and require it to be set before
> some driver operations. That's why these drivers set it on entry.
> However, it does not mean that no drivers rely on the fact that
> data->promiscuous value is set to 1 after callback. Most likely these
> drivers are buggy since it is false in the case of configuration restore
> on startup, but anyway it is not that simply.
>
> Yes, I would prefer to avoid setting data->promiscuous from driver
> code in enable/disable callbacks, but it should be a separate patch
> which change it.
>
> Right now:
>
> net/bnxt sets data->promiscuous=1 on configure if Rx mode is VMDQ_DCB
>
> net/mlx4 sets data->promiscuous always on enable/disable entry
>
> net/octeontx sets data->promiscuous before exit from callback and
> I think it can be safely removed since API functions definitely do it
> before or after callback.
>
> net/softnic sets data->promiscuous=1 on driver register
>
> net/tap sets data->promiscuous=1 in enable/disable hooks before
> tap_flow_implicit_create()
>
> net/nfb sets data->promiscuous in driver init
>
> net/octeontx2 sets data->promiscuous in the middle of processing, but
> I guess before it is really used
Thanks for the detailed clarification, I assumed it just introduced by mistake,
with current status agree to handle this on a separate patch.
Thanks,
ferruh
>
>
>>>>>>> + ret = tap_flow_implicit_create(pmd, TAP_REMOTE_PROMISC);
>>>>>>> + if (ret != 0) {
>>>>>>> + /* Rollback promisc flag */
>>>>>>> + tap_ioctl(pmd, SIOCSIFFLAGS, &ifr, 0,
>>>>>>> LOCAL_AND_REMOTE);
>>>>>>> + /*
>>>>>>> + * rte_eth_dev_promiscuous_enable() rollback
>>>>>>> + * dev->data->promiscuous in the case of
>>>>>>> failure.
>>>>>>> + */
>>>>>>> + return ret;
>>>>>>> + }
>>>>>>> + }
>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>> + return 0;
>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> -static void
>>>>>>> +static int
>>>>>>> tap_promisc_disable(struct rte_eth_dev *dev)
>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>> struct pmd_internals *pmd = dev->data->dev_private;
>>>>>>> struct ifreq ifr = { .ifr_flags = IFF_PROMISC };
>>>>>>> + int ret;
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> - dev->data->promiscuous = 0;
>>>>>>> - tap_ioctl(pmd, SIOCSIFFLAGS, &ifr, 0, LOCAL_AND_REMOTE);
>>>>>>> - if (pmd->remote_if_index && !pmd->flow_isolate)
>>>>>>> - tap_flow_implicit_destroy(pmd, TAP_REMOTE_PROMISC);
>>>>>>> + ret = tap_ioctl(pmd, SIOCSIFFLAGS, &ifr, 0, LOCAL_AND_REMOTE);
>>>>>>> + if (ret != 0)
>>>>>>> + return ret;
>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>> + if (pmd->remote_if_index && !pmd->flow_isolate) {
>>>>>>> + dev->data->promiscuous = 0;
>>>>>> Ditto
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> + ret = tap_flow_implicit_destroy(pmd,
>>>>>>> TAP_REMOTE_PROMISC);
>>>>>>> + if (ret != 0) {
>>>>>>> + /* Rollback promisc flag */
>>>>>>> + tap_ioctl(pmd, SIOCSIFFLAGS, &ifr, 1,
>>>>>>> LOCAL_AND_REMOTE);
>>>>>>> + /*
>>>>>>> + * rte_eth_dev_promiscuous_disable() rollback
>>>>>>> + * dev->data->promiscuous in the case of
>>>>>>> failure.
>>>>>>> + */
>>>>>>> + return ret;
>>>>>>> + }
>>>>>>> + }
>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>> + return 0;
>>>>>>> }
>
