From: Mitch Williams <mitch.a.willi...@intel.com>
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.willi...@intel.com>
Tested-by: Andrew Bowers <andrewx.bow...@intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Jeff Kirsher <jeffrey.t.kirs...@intel.com>
---
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 8e0a247e7e5a..2ac23ebfbf31 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);
--
2.19.1
