Re: [PATCH net 5/6] igc: Fix launchtime before start of cycle

[Leon Romanovsky <leon@kernel.org>]

On Tue, Jul 11, 2023 at 10:37:48AM +0200, Florian Kauer wrote:
> On 11.07.23 09:09, Leon Romanovsky wrote:
> > On Mon, Jul 10, 2023 at 09:35:02AM -0700, Tony Nguyen wrote:
> >> From: Florian Kauer <florian.kauer@linutronix.de>
> >>
> >> It is possible (verified on a running system) that frames are processed
> >> by igc_tx_launchtime with a txtime before the start of the cycle
> >> (baset_est).
> >>
> >> However, the result of txtime - baset_est is written into a u32,
> >> leading to a wrap around to a positive number. The following
> >> launchtime > 0 check will only branch to executing launchtime = 0
> >> if launchtime is already 0.
> >>
> >> Fix it by using a s32 before checking launchtime > 0.
> >>
> >> Fixes: db0b124f02ba ("igc: Enhance Qbv scheduling by using first flag bit")
> >> Signed-off-by: Florian Kauer <florian.kauer@linutronix.de>
> >> Reviewed-by: Kurt Kanzenbach <kurt@linutronix.de>
> >> Tested-by: Naama Meir <naamax.meir@linux.intel.com>
> >> Signed-off-by: Tony Nguyen <anthony.l.nguyen@intel.com>
> >> ---
> >>  drivers/net/ethernet/intel/igc/igc_main.c | 2 +-
> >>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/igc/igc_main.c b/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/igc/igc_main.c
> >> index 5d24930fed8f..4855caa3bae4 100644
> >> --- a/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/igc/igc_main.c
> >> +++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/igc/igc_main.c
> >> @@ -1016,7 +1016,7 @@ static __le32 igc_tx_launchtime(struct igc_ring *ring, ktime_t txtime,
> >>  	ktime_t base_time = adapter->base_time;
> >>  	ktime_t now = ktime_get_clocktai();
> >>  	ktime_t baset_est, end_of_cycle;
> >> -	u32 launchtime;
> >> +	s32 launchtime;
> > 
> > The rest of igc_tx_launchtime() function is very questionable,
> > as ktime_sub_ns() returns ktime_t which is s64.
> > 
> >   1049         launchtime = ktime_sub_ns(txtime, baset_est);
> >   1050         if (launchtime > 0)
> >   1051                 div_s64_rem(launchtime, cycle_time, &launchtime);
> >   1052         else
> >   1053                 launchtime = 0;
> >   1054
> >   1055         return cpu_to_le32(launchtime);
> > 
> 
> If I understand correctly, ktime_sub_ns(txtime, baset_est) will only return
> something larger than s32 max if cycle_time is larger than s32 max and if that
> is the case everything will be broken anyway since the corresponding hardware
> register only holds 30 bits.

I suggest you to use proper variable types, what about the following
snippet?

ktime_t launchtime;

launchtime = ktime_sub_ns(txtime, baset_est);
WARN_ON(upper_32_bits(launchtime));
div_s64_rem(launchtime, cycle_time, &launchtime);

return cpu_to_le32(lower_32_bits(launchtime));

> 
> However, I do not see on first inspection where that case is properly handled
> (probably just by rejecting the TAPRIO schedule).
> 
> Can someone with more experience in that area please jump in?
> 
> Thanks,
> Florian
> 
> > 
> >>  	s64 n;
> >>  
> >>  	n = div64_s64(ktime_sub_ns(now, base_time), cycle_time);
> >> -- 
> >> 2.38.1
> >>
> >>
>