From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>
Received: from dpdk.org (dpdk.org [92.243.14.124])
	by dpdk.space (Postfix) with ESMTP id 063FBA00E6
	for <public@inbox.dpdk.org>; Tue, 16 Apr 2019 11:42:21 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from [92.243.14.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A9CD91B498;
	Tue, 16 Apr 2019 11:42:20 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from mga07.intel.com (mga07.intel.com [134.134.136.100])
 by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B3A0A1B497
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Tue, 16 Apr 2019 11:42:18 +0200 (CEST)
X-Amp-Result: UNSCANNABLE
X-Amp-File-Uploaded: False
Received: from fmsmga003.fm.intel.com ([10.253.24.29])
 by orsmga105.jf.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384;
 16 Apr 2019 02:42:17 -0700
X-ExtLoop1: 1
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.60,357,1549958400"; d="scan'208";a="149828418"
Received: from bricha3-mobl.ger.corp.intel.com ([10.237.220.103])
 by FMSMGA003.fm.intel.com with SMTP; 16 Apr 2019 02:42:14 -0700
Received: by  (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Tue, 16 Apr 2019 10:42:13 +0100
Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2019 10:42:13 +0100
From: Bruce Richardson <bruce.richardson@intel.com>
To: Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yigit@intel.com>
Cc: Stephen Hemminger <stephen@networkplumber.org>, dev@dpdk.org,
 Chas Williams <chas3@att.com>, "John W. Linville" <linville@tuxdriver.com>
Message-ID: <20190416094212.GA1865@bricha3-MOBL.ger.corp.intel.com>
References: <20190408160419.7409-1-stephen@networkplumber.org>
 <20190408164112.12471-1-stephen@networkplumber.org>
 <7e03b000-f4d4-71c3-5978-8a8623d7ace5@intel.com>
 <20190412150833.63c41806@shemminger-XPS-13-9360>
 <3dff5ba9-3965-be8d-7bd5-d8504a66c130@intel.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <3dff5ba9-3965-be8d-7bd5-d8504a66c130@intel.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.11.4 (2019-03-13)
Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2] net/af_packet: fix vlan_insert corruption
X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions <dev.dpdk.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://mails.dpdk.org/options/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://mails.dpdk.org/archives/dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:dev@dpdk.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://mails.dpdk.org/listinfo/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org
Sender: "dev" <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>
Message-ID: <20190416094213.mTmAhUkdcAUwlf6biHDREdZpLtUiSs4d3xDzDrYIHPY@z>

On Tue, Apr 16, 2019 at 10:37:07AM +0100, Ferruh Yigit wrote:
> On 4/12/2019 11:08 PM, Stephen Hemminger wrote:
> > On Fri, 12 Apr 2019 17:28:17 +0100
> > Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yigit@intel.com> wrote:
> > 
> >> On 4/8/2019 5:41 PM, Stephen Hemminger wrote:
> >>> If the af_packet transmit is sending a VLAN packet,
> >>> and the transmit path to the kernel os full, then it would
> >>> mismanage the outgoing mbuf. The original mbuf would end up
> >>> being freed twice, once by AF_PACKET PMD and once by caller.  
> >>
> >> This comment is valid with your new patch [1] that updates 'rte_vlan_insert()'
> >> to duplicate the mbuf, right?
> >>
> >> That patch looks like won't make the release, so I suggest this one wait that
> >> patch, although this is harmless on its own, commit log is misleading.
> >>
> >> [1]
> >> https://patches.dpdk.org/patch/51870/
> > 
> > It was always true, even with existing vlan_insert.
> > Existing vlan_insert has issues if it ever creates a clone packet.
> > Existing vlan_insert can duplicate mbuf through clone
> > 
> 
> Right, existing vlan_insert has same issue on af_packet.
> 
> But, should vlan_insert try to duplicate the mbuf when it is shared, does it
> worth the complexity it brings? And when that support removed this patch won't
> be needed.

I don't think vlan insert or other mbuf manipulation APIs should be
checking for shared state or not - that's the job of the app. We could have
cases where the user does want to modify a shared mbuf.

Regards,
/Bruce