[dpdk-stable] [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] driver: i40evf device initialization

[Ben Magistro]

+cc: stable at dpdk.org

Per discussions here, cc'ing stable for fix to be applied to LTS as
i40evf is being removed from next.

On Thu, Sep 2, 2021 at 8:37 AM Xueming(Steven) Li <xuemingl at nvidia.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yigit at intel.com>
> > Sent: Monday, August 30, 2021 5:43 PM
> > To: Xueming(Steven) Li <xuemingl at nvidia.com>; Kevin Traynor <ktraynor at redhat.com>; Ben Magistro <koncept1 at gmail.com>;
> > dev at dpdk.org; Beilei Xing <beilei.xing at intel.com>; Luca Boccassi <bluca at debian.org>; Christian Ehrhardt
> > <christian.ehrhardt at canonical.com>
> > Cc: ben.magistro at trinitycyber.com; stefan.baranoff at trinitycyber.com; Qi Zhang <qi.z.zhang at intel.com>
> > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] driver: i40evf device initialization
> >
> > On 8/27/2021 7:28 AM, Xueming(Steven) Li wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >> -----Original Message-----
> > >> From: Kevin Traynor <ktraynor at redhat.com>
> > >> Sent: Thursday, August 26, 2021 6:46 PM
> > >> To: Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yigit at intel.com>; Ben Magistro
> > >> <koncept1 at gmail.com>; dev at dpdk.org; Beilei Xing
> > >> <beilei.xing at intel.com>; Luca Boccassi <bluca at debian.org>; Christian
> > >> Ehrhardt <christian.ehrhardt at canonical.com>; Xueming(Steven) Li
> > >> <xuemingl at nvidia.com>
> > >> Cc: ben.magistro at trinitycyber.com; stefan.baranoff at trinitycyber.com;
> > >> Qi Zhang <qi.z.zhang at intel.com>
> > >> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] driver: i40evf device initialization
> > >>
> > >> + Christian and Xueming
> > >>
> > >> On 26/08/2021 11:25, Ferruh Yigit wrote:
> > >>> On 8/25/2021 8:45 PM, Ben Magistro wrote:
> > >>>> The i40evf driver is not initializing the eth_dev attribute which
> > >>>> can result in a nullptr dereference. Changes were modeled after the
> > >>>> iavf_dev_init() per suggestion from the mailing list[1].
> > >>>>
> > >>>> [1] https://mails.dpdk.org/archives/dev/2021-August/217251.html
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Signed-off-by: Ben Magistro <koncept1 at gmail.com>
> > >>>
> > >>> i40evf will be removed in this release. But I guess it helps for
> > >>> stable releases to first merge the fixes and later removed it, not sure.
> > >>>
> > >>> @Luca, @Kevin, do you prefer this patch directly to stable repos, or
> > >>> through the main repo?
> > >>
> > >> I'll leave to Luca/Xueming and Christian to say if they have a
> > >> preference, but I'd guess either way is fine from stable view once it has fixes/stable tags or LTS patch prefix (it doesn't have any of
> > these at present).
> > >
> > > Yes, any option will make it being noticed by LTS maintainer:
> > > 1. patches accepted by main with "fix" in subject 2. patches accepted
> > > by main with "cc: stable at dpdk.org" in commit message 3. patches
> > > backported to LTS, sent to stable maillist with LTS prefix, for example "[20.11]"
> > >
> >
> > Thanks Xueming,
> >
> > But is there a preferences for this case?
> >
> > The i40evf will be removed from main repo, is it better
> > 1- first apply the fix and remove the component from main (I assume fix still will be bacported to LTS in this case) or
> > 2- remove the i40evf from main (without fix), apply the fix directly to the LTS.
>
> Both options will work, the first is more easy and common I guess, both 19.11 LTS and 20.11 LTS maintainer can find it.
>
> >
> > Thanks,
> > ferruh
> >
> > >>
> > >>> i40evf won't be tested in the main anyway, since it would be removed
> > >>> before -rc1 testing, so it looks like there won't be any difference from testing point of view.
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>> ---
> > >>>>  drivers/net/i40e/i40e_ethdev_vf.c | 8 ++++++--
> > >>>>  1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> > >>>>
> > >>>> diff --git a/drivers/net/i40e/i40e_ethdev_vf.c
> > >>>> b/drivers/net/i40e/i40e_ethdev_vf.c
> > >>>> index 0cfe13b7b2..ccdce9a16a 100644
> > >>>> --- a/drivers/net/i40e/i40e_ethdev_vf.c
> > >>>> +++ b/drivers/net/i40e/i40e_ethdev_vf.c
> > >>>> @@ -1564,8 +1564,9 @@ i40evf_dev_alarm_handler(void *param)  static
> > >>>> int  i40evf_dev_init(struct rte_eth_dev *eth_dev)  {
> > >>>> -        struct i40e_hw *hw
> > >>>> -                = I40E_DEV_PRIVATE_TO_HW(eth_dev->data->dev_private);
> > >>>> +        struct i40e_adapter *adapter =
> > >>>> +                I40E_DEV_PRIVATE_TO_ADAPTER(eth_dev->data->dev_private);
> > >>>> +        struct i40e_hw *hw = I40E_DEV_PRIVATE_TO_HW(adapter);
> > >>>>          struct rte_pci_device *pci_dev = RTE_ETH_DEV_TO_PCI(eth_dev);
> > >>>>
> > >>>>          PMD_INIT_FUNC_TRACE();
> > >>>> @@ -1596,11 +1597,14 @@ i40evf_dev_init(struct rte_eth_dev *eth_dev)
> > >>>>          hw->device_id = pci_dev->id.device_id;
> > >>>>          hw->subsystem_vendor_id = pci_dev->id.subsystem_vendor_id;
> > >>>>          hw->subsystem_device_id = pci_dev->id.subsystem_device_id;
> > >>>> +        hw->bus.bus_id = pci_dev->addr.bus;
> > >>>>          hw->bus.device = pci_dev->addr.devid;
> > >>>>          hw->bus.func = pci_dev->addr.function;
> > >>>>          hw->hw_addr = (void *)pci_dev->mem_resource[0].addr;
> > >>>>          hw->adapter_stopped = 1;
> > >>>>          hw->adapter_closed = 0;
> > >>>> +        hw->back = I40E_DEV_PRIVATE_TO_ADAPTER(eth_dev->data->dev_private);
> > >>>> +        adapter->eth_dev = eth_dev;
> > >>>>
> > >>>>          if(i40evf_init_vf(eth_dev) != 0) {
> > >>>>                  PMD_INIT_LOG(ERR, "Init vf failed");
> > >>>>
> > >>>
> > >
>