4.20-stable review patch. If anyone has any objections, please let me know.
------------------
[ Upstream commit 7cd8eb0861981ad212ce4242a1870c4b5831ceff ]
The i40e driver complains about unprivileged VFs trying to configure promiscuous mode each time a VF reset occurs. This isn't the fault of the poor VF driver - the PF driver itself is making the request.
To fix this, skip the privilege check if the request is to disable all promiscuous activity. This gets rid of the bogus message, but doesn't affect privilege checks, since we really only care if the unprivileged VF is trying to enable promiscuous mode.
Signed-off-by: Mitch Williams mitch.a.williams@intel.com Tested-by: Andrew Bowers andrewx.bowers@intel.com Signed-off-by: Jeff Kirsher jeffrey.t.kirsher@intel.com Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin sashal@kernel.org --- drivers/net/ethernet/intel/i40e/i40e_virtchnl_pf.c | 3 ++- 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/i40e/i40e_virtchnl_pf.c b/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/i40e/i40e_virtchnl_pf.c index ac5698ed0b11..c41e8ada23d1 100644 --- a/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/i40e/i40e_virtchnl_pf.c +++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/i40e/i40e_virtchnl_pf.c @@ -1112,7 +1112,8 @@ static i40e_status i40e_config_vf_promiscuous_mode(struct i40e_vf *vf, if (!i40e_vc_isvalid_vsi_id(vf, vsi_id) || !vsi) return I40E_ERR_PARAM;
- if (!test_bit(I40E_VIRTCHNL_VF_CAP_PRIVILEGE, &vf->vf_caps)) { + if (!test_bit(I40E_VIRTCHNL_VF_CAP_PRIVILEGE, &vf->vf_caps) && + (allmulti || alluni)) { dev_err(&pf->pdev->dev, "Unprivileged VF %d is attempting to configure promiscuous mode\n", vf->vf_id);