RE: [EXTERNAL] Re: [PATCH net] octeontx2-af: cn10k: restrict LMTLINE sharing to same PF

[Geethasowjanya Akula]

>-----Original Message-----
>From: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@xxxxxxxxxx>
>Sent: Wednesday, May 27, 2026 7:22 AM
>To: Yuhao Jiang <danisjiang@xxxxxxxxx>
>Cc: Junrui Luo <moonafterrain@xxxxxxxxxxx>; Sunil Kovvuri Goutham
><sgoutham@xxxxxxxxxxx>; Linu Cherian <lcherian@xxxxxxxxxxx>;
>Geethasowjanya Akula <gakula@xxxxxxxxxxx>; Hariprasad Kelam
><hkelam@xxxxxxxxxxx>; Subbaraya Sundeep Bhatta <sbhatta@xxxxxxxxxxx>;
>Andrew Lunn <andrew+netdev@xxxxxxx>; David S. Miller
><davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Eric Dumazet <edumazet@xxxxxxxxxx>; Paolo
>Abeni <pabeni@xxxxxxxxxx>; netdev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux-
>kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [PATCH net] octeontx2-af: cn10k: restrict LMTLINE
>sharing to same PF
>On Tue, 26 May 2026 20:46:46 -0500 Yuhao Jiang wrote:
>> Hi Jakub,
>>
>> I worked with Junrui on discovering this bug and preparing the patch.
>> I found the bug and reported it to Junrui, and he helped write the
>> patch. There may be some overlap with other work.
>
>Please don't top post on the list.
>
>Junrui, please describe your discovery process.
>
>> On Tue, May 26, 2026 at 8:02 PM Jakub Kicinski <kuba@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> >
>> > On Sun, 24 May 2026 15:29:29 +0800 Junrui Luo wrote:
>> > > Reported-by: Yuhao Jiang <danisjiang@xxxxxxxxx>
>> >
>> > Really? I thought I saw this reported in Sashiko..
>> >
>> > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__netdev-2Dai.bot
>> > s.linux.dev_sashiko_-23_patchset_20260520154157.1439319-2D1-
>2Dmichae
>> > l.bommarito-
>40gmail.com&d=DwIFaQ&c=nKjWec2b6R0mOyPaz7xtfQ&r=UiEt_nUe
>> >
>YFctu7JVLXVlXDhTmq_EAfooaZEYInfGuEQ&m=ESyWUuC7cOhVRmobPkCa2wZp
>UJil1G
>> > km_eJqp-iBzx2soczScJlUupDstoIztUIo&s=J8p73boIdnnkY-
>tzhEXMXXE6W0qp5sC
>> > HAZFQ0FjEugE&e=
>> >
>> > Either way, Marvell folks - please review.

Hi Junrui and Jakub,

This patch enforces that the requester’s pcifunc and req->base_pcifunc belong to the same PF.
However, this assumption is not always valid.
We have valid use cases where LMTST lines are intentionally shared across multiple PFs. In such scenarios, 
the base_pcifunc may legitimately belong to a different PF, and restricting access to the same PF would 
break these existing use cases.