Re: [PATCH net v2] i40e: fix the panic when running bpf in xdpdrv mode

[Jason Xing]

On Wed, Apr 14, 2021 at 12:27 AM Jesse Brandeburg
<jesse.brandeburg@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> kerneljasonxing@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
>
> > From: Jason Xing <xingwanli@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
> Hi Jason,
>
> Sorry, I missed this on the first time: Added intel-wired-lan,
> please include on any future submissions for Intel drivers.
> get-maintainers script might help here?
>

Probably I got this wrong in the last email. Did you mean that I should add
intel-wired-lan in the title not the cc list? It seems I should put
this together on
the next submission like this:

[Intel-wired-lan] [PATCH net v4]

Am I missing something?

Thanks,
Jason

> >
> > Fix this panic by adding more rules to calculate the value of @rss_size_max
> > which could be used in allocating the queues when bpf is loaded, which,
> > however, could cause the failure and then trigger the NULL pointer of
> > vsi->rx_rings. Prio to this fix, the machine doesn't care about how many
> > cpus are online and then allocates 256 queues on the machine with 32 cpus
> > online actually.
> >
> > Once the load of bpf begins, the log will go like this "failed to get
> > tracking for 256 queues for VSI 0 err -12" and this "setup of MAIN VSI
> > failed".
> >
> > Thus, I attach the key information of the crash-log here.
> >
> > BUG: unable to handle kernel NULL pointer dereference at
> > 0000000000000000
> > RIP: 0010:i40e_xdp+0xdd/0x1b0 [i40e]
> > Call Trace:
> > [2160294.717292]  ? i40e_reconfig_rss_queues+0x170/0x170 [i40e]
> > [2160294.717666]  dev_xdp_install+0x4f/0x70
> > [2160294.718036]  dev_change_xdp_fd+0x11f/0x230
> > [2160294.718380]  ? dev_disable_lro+0xe0/0xe0
> > [2160294.718705]  do_setlink+0xac7/0xe70
> > [2160294.719035]  ? __nla_parse+0xed/0x120
> > [2160294.719365]  rtnl_newlink+0x73b/0x860
> >
> > Fixes: 41c445ff0f48 ("i40e: main driver core")
> >
>
> This Fixes line should be connected to the Sign offs with
> no linefeeds between.
>
> > Signed-off-by: Jason Xing <xingwanli@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Signed-off-by: Shujin Li <lishujin@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
> Did Shujin contribute to this patch? Why are they signing off? If
> they developed this patch with you, it should say:
> Co-developed-by: Shujin ....
> Signed-off-by: Shujin ...
> Signed-off-by: Jason ...
>
> Your signature should be last if you sent the patch. The sign-offs are
> like a chain of custody, please review
> https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/process/submitting-patches.html#when-to-use-acked-by-cc-and-co-developed-by
>
> Thanks,
>  Jesse