Re: [net-next,V5,11/15] net/mlx5: Expose a function to clear a vport's parent

[Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>]

On Wed, 21 Jan 2026 19:40:01 -0800 Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> This is an AI-generated review of your patch. The human sending this
> email has considered the AI review valid, or at least plausible.
> 
> For local reproduction steps see https://netdev-ai.bots.linux.dev/ai-local.html
> ---
> net/mlx5e: Skip ESN replay window setup for IPsec crypto offload
> 
> This patch fixes a WARN_ON being triggered for crypto offload by adding
> a check to skip the replay window setup when the offload type is not
> XFRM_DEV_OFFLOAD_PACKET.
> 
> > diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/mellanox/mlx5/core/en_accel/ipsec.c b/drivers/net/ethernet/mellanox/mlx5/core/en_accel/ipsec.c
> > index a8fb4bec369c..63aa23f5c49e 100644
> > --- a/drivers/net/ethernet/mellanox/mlx5/core/en_accel/ipsec.c
> > +++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/mellanox/mlx5/core/en_accel/ipsec.c
> > @@ -430,7 +430,8 @@ void mlx5e_ipsec_build_accel_xfrm_attrs(struct mlx5e_ipsec_sa_entry *sa_entry,
> >  		attrs->replay_esn.esn = sa_entry->esn_state.esn;
> >  		attrs->replay_esn.esn_msb = sa_entry->esn_state.esn_msb;
> >  		attrs->replay_esn.overlap = sa_entry->esn_state.overlap;
> > -		if (attrs->dir == XFRM_DEV_OFFLOAD_OUT)
> > +		if (attrs->dir == XFRM_DEV_OFFLOAD_OUT ||
> > +		    attrs->type != XFRM_DEV_OFFLOAD_PACKET)
> >  			goto skip_replay_window;  
> 
> At this point in mlx5e_ipsec_build_accel_xfrm_attrs(), attrs->type has not
> been initialized yet. The function starts with memset(attrs, 0, ...) which
> sets attrs->type to 0 (XFRM_DEV_OFFLOAD_UNSPECIFIED).
> 
> The assignment attrs->type = x->xso.type happens later after the
> skip_replay_window label. This means the condition attrs->type !=
> XFRM_DEV_OFFLOAD_PACKET evaluates as 0 != 2 which is always true.
> 
> As a result, the replay window setup will be skipped for all inbound
> configurations, not just crypto offload. Should this check use x->xso.type
> instead of attrs->type, or should attrs->type be assigned earlier in the
> function before this check?

Herm, something misfired here, this is a review for the series of fixes
posted on the same day, not for the rate scheduling.