When probing the Linux kernel network interfaces attached to E-Switch,
mlx5 PMD decides the representor type and represented entity
using phys_port_name exposed by the mlx5 kernel driver in sysfs.
mlx5 PMD first checks this name for multihost controller index.
In multihost scenarios, phys_port_name is prefixed with "c[0-9]+" string.
Included integer is the controller index.

Assuming that phys_port_name contains a string representing a physical
port, i.e. "p[0-9]+" string, the parsing logic is incorrect.
Both "p[0-9]+" and "c[0-9]+" match the formatting string used to parse
phys_port_name, but controller index is still filled out.

This patch fixes this behavior by storing the parsed index
in a temporary variable and setting controller index
if and only if phys_port_name matches multihost controller syntax.

Fixes: 59df97f1a832 ("common/mlx5: support sub-function representor parsing")
Cc: xuemi...@nvidia.com
Cc: sta...@dpdk.org

Signed-off-by: Dariusz Sosnowski <dsosnow...@nvidia.com>
Acked-by: Viacheslav Ovsiienko <viachesl...@nvidia.com>
---
 drivers/common/mlx5/linux/mlx5_common_os.c | 5 +++--
 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/common/mlx5/linux/mlx5_common_os.c 
b/drivers/common/mlx5/linux/mlx5_common_os.c
index 7260c1a19f..41345e1597 100644
--- a/drivers/common/mlx5/linux/mlx5_common_os.c
+++ b/drivers/common/mlx5/linux/mlx5_common_os.c
@@ -96,10 +96,11 @@ mlx5_translate_port_name(const char *port_name_in,
        char ctrl = 0, pf_c1, pf_c2, vf_c1, vf_c2, eol;
        char *end;
        int sc_items;
+       int32_t ctrl_num = -1;
 
-       sc_items = sscanf(port_name_in, "%c%d",
-                         &ctrl, &port_info_out->ctrl_num);
+       sc_items = sscanf(port_name_in, "%c%d", &ctrl, &ctrl_num);
        if (sc_items == 2 && ctrl == 'c') {
+               port_info_out->ctrl_num = ctrl_num;
                port_name_in++; /* 'c' */
                port_name_in += snprintf(NULL, 0, "%d",
                                          port_info_out->ctrl_num);
-- 
2.25.1

Reply via email to