lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2023]   [Feb]   [16]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
SubjectRe: [EXT] Re: [PATCH v0] qed/qed_dev: guard against a possible division by zero
From
On 2/16/23 12:20 AM, Manish Chopra wrote:
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Daniil Tatianin <d-tatianin@yandex-team.ru>
>> Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2023 12:53 PM
>> To: Simon Horman <simon.horman@corigine.com>
>> Cc: Ariel Elior <aelior@marvell.com>; Manish Chopra
>> <manishc@marvell.com>; David S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net>; Eric
>> Dumazet <edumazet@google.com>; Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>; Paolo
>> Abeni <pabeni@redhat.com>; Yuval Mintz <Yuval.Mintz@qlogic.com>;
>> netdev@vger.kernel.org; linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
>> Subject: [EXT] Re: [PATCH v0] qed/qed_dev: guard against a possible division
>> by zero
>>
>> External Email
>>
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>
>> On 2/9/23 2:13 PM, Simon Horman wrote:
>>> On Thu, Feb 09, 2023 at 01:38:13PM +0300, Daniil Tatianin wrote:
>>>> Previously we would divide total_left_rate by zero if num_vports
>>>> happened to be 1 because non_requested_count is calculated as
>>>> num_vports - req_count. Guard against this by explicitly checking for
>>>> zero when doing the division.
>>>>
>>>> Found by Linux Verification Center (linuxtesting.org) with the SVACE
>>>> static analysis tool.
>>>>
>>>> Fixes: bcd197c81f63 ("qed: Add vport WFQ configuration APIs")
>>>> Signed-off-by: Daniil Tatianin <d-tatianin@yandex-team.ru>
>>>> ---
>>>> drivers/net/ethernet/qlogic/qed/qed_dev.c | 2 +-
>>>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/qlogic/qed/qed_dev.c
>>>> b/drivers/net/ethernet/qlogic/qed/qed_dev.c
>>>> index d61cd32ec3b6..90927f68c459 100644
>>>> --- a/drivers/net/ethernet/qlogic/qed/qed_dev.c
>>>> +++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/qlogic/qed/qed_dev.c
>>>> @@ -5123,7 +5123,7 @@ static int qed_init_wfq_param(struct qed_hwfn
>>>> *p_hwfn,
>>>>
>>>> total_left_rate = min_pf_rate - total_req_min_rate;
>>>>
>>>> - left_rate_per_vp = total_left_rate / non_requested_count;
>>>> + left_rate_per_vp = total_left_rate / (non_requested_count ?: 1);
>>>
>>> I don't know if num_vports can be 1.
>>> But if it is then I agree that the above will be a divide by zero.
>>>
>>> I do, however, wonder if it would be better to either:
>>>
>>> * Treat this case as invalid and return with -EINVAL if num_vports is
>>> 1; or
>> I think that's a good idea considering num_vports == 1 is indeed an invalid
>> value.
>> I'd like to hear a maintainer's opinion on this.
>
> Practically, this flow will only hit with presence of SR-IOV VFs. In that case it's
> always expected to have num_vports > 1.

In that case, should we add a check and return with -EINVAL otherwise?
Thank you!

>>> * Skip both the calculation immediately above and the code
>>> in the if condition below, which is the only place where
>>> the calculated value is used, if num_vports is 1.
>>> I don't think the if clause makes much sense if num_vports is
>>> one.left_rate_per_vp is also used below the if clause, it is assigned
>>> to
>> .min_speed in a for loop. Looking at that code division by 1 seems to make
>> sense to me in this case.
>>>
>>>> if (left_rate_per_vp < min_pf_rate / QED_WFQ_UNIT) {
>>>> DP_VERBOSE(p_hwfn, NETIF_MSG_LINK,
>>>> "Non WFQ configured vports rate [%d Mbps] is less
>> than one
>>>> percent of configured PF min rate[%d Mbps]\n",
>>>> --
>>>> 2.25.1
>>>>

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2023-03-27 00:25    [W:0.071 / U:0.276 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site