On Fri, Mar 29, 2024 at 12:31:58PM +0100, Marcin Szycik wrote: > > > On 28.03.2024 18:34, Simon Horman wrote: > > On Tue, Mar 26, 2024 at 05:44:55PM +0100, Marcin Szycik wrote: > >> In cases when VF sends malformed packets that are classified as malicious, > >> sometimes it causes Tx queue to freeze. This frozen queue can be stuck > >> for several minutes being unusable. This behavior can be reproduced with > >> a faulty userspace app running on VF. > >> > >> When Malicious Driver Detection event occurs and the mdd-auto-reset-vf > >> private flag is set, perform a graceful VF reset to quickly bring VF back > >> to operational state. Add a log message to notify about the cause of > >> the reset. Add a helper for this to be reused for both TX and RX events. > >> > >> Reviewed-by: Wojciech Drewek <wojciech.dre...@intel.com> > >> Co-developed-by: Liang-Min Wang <liang-min.w...@intel.com> > >> Signed-off-by: Liang-Min Wang <liang-min.w...@intel.com> > >> Signed-off-by: Marcin Szycik <marcin.szy...@linux.intel.com> > > > > Hi Marcin, > > > > If I read this correctly then a reset may be performed for several > > different conditions - values of different registers - for a VF > > as checked in a for loop. > > > > I am wondering if multiple resets could occur for the same VF within > > an iteration of the for loop - because more than one of the conditions is > > met. And, if so, is this ok? > > Hi Simon, > > Good point. Nothing too bad should happen, as ice_reset_vf() acquires mutex > lock > (in fact two locks), so several resets would just happen in sequence. However, > it doesn't make much sense to reset VF multiple times, so maybe instead of > issuing > reset on each condition, I'll set some flag, and after checking all registers > I'll > trigger reset if that flag is set. What do you think?
Thanks Marcin, FWIIW, that sounds like a good approach to me. -- pw-bot: changes-requested
