qemu-ppc
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [PATCH v2] hw/net: fsl_etsec: Reverse the RCTRL.RSF logic


From: Bin Meng
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] hw/net: fsl_etsec: Reverse the RCTRL.RSF logic
Date: Tue, 9 Feb 2021 17:54:38 +0800

Hi Peter,

On Tue, Feb 9, 2021 at 5:48 PM Peter Maydell <peter.maydell@linaro.org> wrote:
>
> On Tue, 9 Feb 2021 at 01:22, Bin Meng <bmeng.cn@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > From: Bin Meng <bin.meng@windriver.com>
> >
> > Per MPC8548ERM [1] chapter 14.5.3.4.1:
> >
> > When RCTRL.RSF is 1, frames less than 64 bytes are accepted upon
> > a DA match. But currently QEMU does the opposite.
> >
> > When RCTRL.RSF is 0, short frames are silently dropped, however
> > we cannot drop such frames in QEMU as of today, due to both slirp
> > and tap networking do not pad short frames (e.g.: an ARP packet)
> > to the minimum frame size of 60 bytes.
> >
> > If eTSEC is programmed to reject short frames, ARP requests will be
> > dropped, preventing the guest from becoming visible on the network.
> >
> > The same issue was reported on e1000 and vmxenet3 before, see:
> >
> > commit 78aeb23eded2 ("e1000: Pad short frames to minimum size (60 bytes)")
> > commit 40a87c6c9b11 ("vmxnet3: Pad short frames to minimum size (60 bytes)")
> >
> > Ideally this should be fixed on the slirp/tap networking side to
> > pad short frames to the minimum frame length, but I am not sure
> > whether that's doable.
> >
> > This commit reverses the RCTRL.RSF testing logic to match the spec.
> > The log message is updated to mention the reject short frames
> > functionality is unimplemented.
> >
> > [1] https://www.nxp.com/docs/en/reference-manual/MPC8548ERM.pdf
> >
> > Fixes: eb1e7c3e5146 ("Add Enhanced Three-Speed Ethernet Controller (eTSEC)")
> > Signed-off-by: Bin Meng <bin.meng@windriver.com>
>
>
> > -    if ((etsec->regs[RCTRL].value & RCTRL_RSF) && (size < 60)) {
> > +    /*
> > +     * Both slirp and tap networking do not pad short frames
> > +     * (e.g.: an ARP packet) to the minimum frame size of 60 bytes.
> > +     *
> > +     * If eTSEC is programmed to reject short frames, ARP requests
> > +     * will be dropped, preventing the guest from becoming visible
> > +     * on the network.
> > +     */
> > +    if (!(etsec->regs[RCTRL].value & RCTRL_RSF) && (size < 60)) {
> >          /* CRC is not in the packet yet, so short frame is below 60 bytes 
> > */
> > -        RING_DEBUG("%s: Drop short frame\n", __func__);
> > -        return -1;
> > +        RING_DEBUG("%s: Drop short frame not implemented\n", __func__);
> >      }
>
> This change is doing two things at once.

We may have to do that. If we just reverse the testing logic, I bet
lots of guest software will break because of the reversion. Doing 2
things at one won't breaks such bisectability.

>
> One of them is an entirely uncontroversial bug fix: we
> got the sense of the RCTRL_RSF test the wrong way round.
>
> The other is different: it is working around a bug elsewhere in QEMU.
>
> If there's a problem with packets that should not be short
> frames being presented to ethernet devices as short frames,
> please fix that bug at the source. I don't think we should
> take any more device-model workarounds for it.

See above, if only fixing the testing logic, the fix may immediately
break guest software.

Or someone could fix the slirp or tap networking ASAP?

> We have lots
> and lots of ethernet device models: it will be much more
> effort to try to fix them all one by one as people encounter
> this bug than it would be to just fix the code that's creating
> bogus short frames.
>
> David, could you drop this from your queue, please ?

Regards,
Bin



reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]