Re: [PATCH net 1/7] net/mlx5e: ipsec: Block eswitch mode changes during policy creation

[Cosmin Ratiu <cratiu@nvidia.com>]

On Mon, 2026-09-21 at 18:49 +0000, netdev-bot+sashiko@kernel.org wrote:
> Thank you for your contribution! Sashiko AI review found 1 potential
> issue(s) to consider.
> 
> Critical: 0 · High: 0 · Medium: 1 · Low: 0 (1)
> 
> If you believe none of the issues are legitimate, please reply to
> each
> issue of Medium severity or higher and explain why the AI is wrong.
> If any of them are legitimate and you plan to respin, please let
> patchwork
> know by including "pw-bot: cr" as a separate line at the end of your
> reply
> (one such reply per series is enough).
> 
> - [Medium] `mlx5e_xfrm_add_policy()`
>   (drivers/net/ethernet/mellanox/mlx5/core/en_accel/ipsec.c:1268-
> 1274)…
> 
> Pre-existing issues:
> - [Low] Incomplete-fix concern: at this commit
> `mlx5e_xfrm_add_state()`
>   (drivers/net/ethernet/mellanox/mlx5/core/en_accel/ipsec.c:781-813)…
> 
> --
> 
> net/mlx5e: ipsec: Block eswitch mode changes during policy creation
> 
> This moves the eswitch mode block in mlx5e_xfrm_add_policy() to the
> top of
> the function, before priv->ipsec is checked and the policy is
> validated, and
> releases it once the flow table holds its own block or after
> unwinding.
> A check_users argument is added to mlx5_eswitch_block_mode() /
> mlx5_esw_try_lock() so the new temporary block does not reject
> policies while
> TC users are present.
> 
> > 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 db260e3d1412f..841ecdc2c4d9e 100644
> > --- a/drivers/net/ethernet/mellanox/mlx5/core/en_accel/ipsec.c
> > +++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/mellanox/mlx5/core/en_accel/ipsec.c
> > @@ -806,7 +806,7 @@ static int mlx5e_xfrm_add_state(struct
> > net_device *dev,
> >  		goto err_xfrm;
> >  	}
> >  
> > -	err = mlx5_eswitch_block_mode(priv->mdev);
> > +	err = mlx5_eswitch_block_mode(priv->mdev, true);
> >  	if (err)
> >  		goto unblock_ipsec;
> 
> [Severity: Low]
> This isn't a bug introduced by this patch, but as of this commit
> mlx5e_xfrm_add_state() still has the ordering the changelog describes
> as
> unsafe: priv->ipsec is tested, cached into ipsec and sa_entry->ipsec,
> and
> dereferenced through mlx5e_ipsec_fs_tunnel_allowed(sa_entry) before
> the
> mode block above is taken.
> 
> 	priv = netdev_priv(dev);
> 	if (!priv->ipsec)
> 		return -EOPNOTSUPP;
> 
> 	ipsec = priv->ipsec;
> 	...
> 	err = mlx5_eswitch_block_mode(priv->mdev, true);
> 
> The immediately following patch in the series, "net/mlx5e: ipsec:
> Block
> eswitch mode changes before accessing priv->ipsec", moves the block
> to the
> top of mlx5e_xfrm_add_state() and adds the matching unblock_mode:
> unwind, so
> the ordering is consistent again at the end of the series. Would it
> be worth
> mentioning in this changelog that the SA path is handled in the next
> patch,
> so this intermediate state is not read as an oversight?

Will do.

> 
> > @@ -1266,18 +1266,28 @@ static int mlx5e_xfrm_add_policy(struct
> > xfrm_policy *x,
> >  	int err;
> >  
> >  	priv = netdev_priv(netdev);
> > +	/* Block esw mode changes until the policy holds its own
> > block. */
> > +	err = mlx5_eswitch_block_mode(priv->mdev, false);
> > +	if (err) {
> > +		NL_SET_ERR_MSG_MOD(extack, "Eswitch busy, can't
> > add policy");
> > +		return err;
> > +	}
> > +
> 
> [Severity: Medium]
> Can this make policy adds fail spuriously with -EINVAL?
> 
> The new block is taken on every policy add, and mlx5_esw_try_lock()
> bails out
> before the check_users test:
> 
> drivers/net/ethernet/mellanox/mlx5/core/eswitch.c:mlx5_esw_try_lock()
> {
> 	if (down_write_trylock(&esw->mode_lock) == 0)
> 		return -EINVAL;
> 	...
> }
> 
> So passing check_users=false does not help when the mode_lock is
> simply held
> by someone else at that moment. A concrete reader is the TC path,
> which holds
> the read side across the whole flow creation:
> 
> drivers/net/ethernet/mellanox/mlx5/core/en_tc.c:mlx5e_configure_flowe
> r() {
> 	if (!mlx5_esw_hold(priv->mdev))
> 		return -EBUSY;
> 	...
> 	err = mlx5e_tc_add_flow(priv, f, flags, dev, &flow);
> 	...
> 	mlx5_esw_release(priv->mdev);
> }
> 
> mlx5e_ipsec_block_tc_offload(), mlx5_eswitch_unblock_mode() and
> mlx5_devlink_switchdev_active_mode_change() take the write side with
> a
> blocking down_write().
> 
> The errno is passed straight to userspace:
> 
> net/xfrm/xfrm_device.c:xfrm_dev_policy_add() {
> 	err = dev->xfrmdev_ops->xdo_dev_policy_add(xp, extack);
> 	if (err) {
> 		...
> 		return err;
> 	}
> }
> 
> Before this change, a policy add that reused already-created tables
> never ran
> a trylock at all:
> 
> drivers/net/ethernet/mellanox/mlx5/core/en_accel/ipsec_fs.c:rx_get()
> {
> 	if (rx->ft.refcnt)
> 		goto skip;
> 
> 	err = mlx5_eswitch_block_mode(mdev, true);
> 	...
> }
> 
> which is the same "TC rule on a VF representor" case the changelog
> wants to
> keep working. Would an ip xfrm policy add now fail immediately, with
> no wait
> and no retry, whenever it overlaps a tc filter add on a representor?
> 
> Also, the extack text says "Eswitch busy" while the returned errno
> can be
> -EINVAL, which the kernel-doc updated by this patch defines as "lock
> is
> already held" rather than a busy/retriable condition. Should the
> transient
> trylock collision be reported as -EBUSY so userspace can tell it
> apart from a
> permanent validation rejection?

Will address.

> 
> >  	if (!priv->ipsec) {
> >  		NL_SET_ERR_MSG_MOD(extack, "Device doesn't support
> > IPsec packet offload");
> > -		return -EOPNOTSUPP;
> > +		err = -EOPNOTSUPP;
> > +		goto unblock_mode;
> >  	}
> >  
> >  	err = mlx5e_xfrm_validate_policy(priv->mdev, x, extack);
> >  	if (err)
> > -		return err;
> > +		goto unblock_mode;
> >  
> >  	pol_entry = kzalloc_obj(*pol_entry);
> > -	if (!pol_entry)
> > -		return -ENOMEM;
> > +	if (!pol_entry) {
> > +		err = -ENOMEM;
> > +		goto unblock_mode;
> > +	}
> >  
> >  	pol_entry->x = x;
> >  	pol_entry->ipsec = priv->ipsec;
> > @@ -1293,6 +1303,7 @@ static int mlx5e_xfrm_add_policy(struct
> > xfrm_policy *x,
> >  		goto err_fs;
> >  
> >  	x->xdo.offload_handle = (unsigned long)pol_entry;
> > +	mlx5_eswitch_unblock_mode(priv->mdev);
> >  	return 0;
> >  
> > err_fs:
> > @@ -1300,6 +1311,8 @@ static int mlx5e_xfrm_add_policy(struct
> > xfrm_policy *x,
> > ipsec_busy:
> >  	kfree(pol_entry);
> >  	NL_SET_ERR_MSG_MOD(extack, "Device failed to offload this
> > policy");
> > +unblock_mode:
> > +	mlx5_eswitch_unblock_mode(priv->mdev);
> >  	return err;
> >  }
> 
> [ ... ]
> 
> > diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/mellanox/mlx5/core/eswitch.c
> > b/drivers/net/ethernet/mellanox/mlx5/core/eswitch.c
> > index fc197d1dc9dfe..0b48cc7a67343 100644
> > --- a/drivers/net/ethernet/mellanox/mlx5/core/eswitch.c
> > +++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/mellanox/mlx5/core/eswitch.c
> > @@ -3005,21 +3005,22 @@ void mlx5_esw_put(struct mlx5_core_dev
> > *mdev)
> >  /**
> >   * mlx5_esw_try_lock() - Take a write lock on esw mode lock.
> >   * @esw: eswitch device.
> > + * @check_users: reject the lock if eswitch users exist.
> >   *
> >   * Should be called by esw mode change routine.
> >   *
> >   * Return:
> > - * * 0       - esw mode if successfully locked and refcount is 0.
> > - * * -EBUSY  - refcount is not 0.
> > - * * -EINVAL - In the middle of switching mode or lock is already
> > held.
> > + * * >= 0    - esw mode if successfully locked.
> > + * * -EBUSY  - mode change in progress or users exist with
> > check_users set.
> > + * * -EINVAL - lock is already held.
> >   */
> > -int mlx5_esw_try_lock(struct mlx5_eswitch *esw)
> > +int mlx5_esw_try_lock(struct mlx5_eswitch *esw, bool check_users)
> >  {
> >  	if (down_write_trylock(&esw->mode_lock) == 0)
> >  		return -EINVAL;
> >  
> >  	if (esw->eswitch_operation_in_progress ||
> > -	    atomic64_read(&esw->user_count) > 0) {
> > +	    (check_users && atomic64_read(&esw->user_count) > 0))
> > {
> >  		up_write(&esw->mode_lock);
> >  		return -EBUSY;
> >  	}
> 
> [ ... ]
> 
> > diff --git
> > a/drivers/net/ethernet/mellanox/mlx5/core/eswitch_offloads.c
> > b/drivers/net/ethernet/mellanox/mlx5/core/eswitch_offloads.c
> > index eb74b62601682..996490e116253 100644
> > --- a/drivers/net/ethernet/mellanox/mlx5/core/eswitch_offloads.c
> > +++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/mellanox/mlx5/core/eswitch_offloads.c
> > @@ -4351,8 +4351,7 @@ int mlx5_eswitch_block_mode(struct
> > mlx5_core_dev *dev)
> >  	if (!mlx5_esw_allowed(esw))
> >  		return 0;
> >  
> > -	/* Take TC into account */
> > -	err = mlx5_esw_try_lock(esw);
> > +	err = mlx5_esw_try_lock(esw, check_users);
> >  	if (err < 0)
> >  		return err;
> 
> [ ... ]
>