Re: [PATCH net v3] bnxt_en: Bound SW TPA IDs to prevent crashes

[Michael Chan]

On Thu, Aug 27, 2026 at 4:41 PM Joe Damato <joe@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Aug 27, 2026 at 04:07:16PM -0700, Michael Chan wrote:
> > On Thu, Aug 27, 2026 at 11:57 AM Joe Damato <joe@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > > @@ -3831,6 +3834,7 @@ static int bnxt_alloc_tpa_info(struct bnxt *bp)
> > >         int i, rc;
> > >
> > >         bp->max_tpa = MAX_TPA;
> > > +       bp->max_tpa_roundup_size = MAX_TPA;
> >
> > This is strictly not needed.  If we return early below, it means the
> > chip does not support TPA at all.  We skip allocating the TPA array
> > for every ring, so it really makes no difference.
> >
> > BNXT_SUPPORTS_TPA() will be false if we return early.  LRO and HW_GRO
> > will not be supported.  So I would say it's a false positive from
> > Sashiko.  Thanks.
>
> Sorry, I should have been more explicit in my last message: is it worth a
> respin to remove this? Unless I am misunderstanding something, it's harmless
> and while not necessary, might be more clear for a human reader?
>

Yes, the extra line is harmless.  But I think it will further confuse
the reader (or AI) into thinking that TPA is supported when we return
early.  I slightly prefer not adding this line.  If you end up
re-spinning, maybe add an extra comment explaining that TPA is not
supported when we return early?  Thanks.

Attachment: smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature