From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail.droids-corp.org (zoll.droids-corp.org [94.23.50.67]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E756B2C01 for ; Tue, 19 Jul 2016 16:00:00 +0200 (CEST) Received: from alille-653-1-293-182.w90-1.abo.wanadoo.fr ([90.1.53.182] helo=[192.168.1.13]) by mail.droids-corp.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1bPVbV-0004mX-2X; Tue, 19 Jul 2016 16:02:34 +0200 To: "Tan, Jianfeng" , "dev@dpdk.org" , "Xie, Huawei" , "yuanhan.liu@linux.intel.com" References: <1468931519-7381-1-git-send-email-olivier.matz@6wind.com> From: Olivier Matz Message-ID: <1c15f3d4-ed12-c315-cf88-8a71cc6fee5f@6wind.com> Date: Tue, 19 Jul 2016 15:59:51 +0200 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Icedove/45.1.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] virtio: fix packet corruption X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: patches and discussions about DPDK List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 19 Jul 2016 14:00:01 -0000 Hi, On 07/19/2016 03:57 PM, Tan, Jianfeng wrote: > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Olivier Matz [mailto:olivier.matz@6wind.com] >> Sent: Tuesday, July 19, 2016 9:11 PM >> To: Tan, Jianfeng; dev@dpdk.org; Xie, Huawei; yuanhan.liu@linux.intel.com >> Subject: Re: [PATCH] virtio: fix packet corruption >> >> Hi Jianfeng, >> >> On 07/19/2016 03:03 PM, Tan, Jianfeng wrote: >>> Hi Oliver, >>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: Olivier Matz [mailto:olivier.matz@6wind.com] >>>> Sent: Tuesday, July 19, 2016 8:32 PM >>>> To: dev@dpdk.org; Tan, Jianfeng; Xie, Huawei; >> yuanhan.liu@linux.intel.com >>>> Subject: [PATCH] virtio: fix packet corruption >>>> >>>> The support of virtio-user changed the way the mbuf dma address is >>>> retrieved, using a physical address in case of virtio-pci and a virtual >>>> address in case of virtio-user. >>>> >>>> This change introduced some possible memory corruption in packets, >>>> replacing: >>>> m->buf_physaddr + RTE_PKTMBUF_HEADROOM >>>> by: >>>> m->buf_physaddr + m->data_off (through a macro) >>>> >>>> This patch fixes this issue, restoring the original behavior. >>> >>> Could you be more specific on why we cannot use m->data_off here? >> >> There is no guarantee that m->data_off == RTE_PKTMBUF_HEADROOM here >> as >> virtqueue_enqueue_recv_refill() is called on a mbuf that is just >> allocated with rte_mbuf_raw_alloc(). An alternative would be to set >> data_off to RTE_PKTMBUF_HEADROOM, but as it's a fix and we are close to >> the release, I prefered to restore the initial behavior. > > Oh yes, gotcha. > > But if we do not set data_off properly, it's still buggy when others consume these mbufs, right? > This is done later in virtio_recv_pkts*() functions, one the host has written the data in the mbuf.