DPDK patches and discussions
 help / color / Atom feed
From: Olivier Matz <olivier.matz@6wind.com>
To: Stephen Hemminger <stephen@networkplumber.org>
Cc: Shahaf Shuler <shahafs@mellanox.com>,
	Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net>,
	"dev@dpdk.org" <dev@dpdk.org>
Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] mbuf: extend pktmbuf pool private structure
Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2019 15:15:12 +0100
Message-ID: <20191121141512.GD14387@glumotte.dev.6wind.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20191120075614.07bf2207@hermes.lan>

Hi,

On Wed, Nov 20, 2019 at 07:56:14AM -0800, Stephen Hemminger wrote:
> On Wed, 20 Nov 2019 07:01:26 +0000
> Shahaf Shuler <shahafs@mellanox.com> wrote:
> 
> > Wednesday, November 20, 2019 1:51 AM, Stephen Hemminger:
> > > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] mbuf: extend pktmbuf pool private
> > > structure
> > > 
> > > On Tue, 19 Nov 2019 23:30:15 +0100
> > > Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net> wrote:
> > >   
> > > > 19/11/2019 17:25, Stephen Hemminger:  
> > > > > On Tue, 19 Nov 2019 15:23:50 +0000
> > > > > Shahaf Shuler <shahafs@mellanox.com> wrote:
> > > > >  
> > > > > > Tuesday, November 19, 2019 11:33 AM, Thomas Monjalon:  
> > > > > > > Subject: Re: [PATCH] mbuf: extend pktmbuf pool private structure
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > 18/11/2019 11:02, Shahaf Shuler:  
> > > > > > > >  struct rte_pktmbuf_pool_private {
> > > > > > > >  	uint16_t mbuf_data_room_size; /**< Size of data space in  
> > > each  
> > > > > > > mbuf. */  
> > > > > > > >  	uint16_t mbuf_priv_size;      /**< Size of private area in each  
> > > mbuf.  
> > > > > > > */  
> > > > > > > > +	uint32_t reserved; /**< reserved for future use. */  
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Maybe simpler to give the future name "flags" and keep the  
> > > comment  
> > > > > > > "reserved for future use".  
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I'm am OK w/ changing to flags.
> > > > > > If Olivier accepts maybe you can change while applying?  

OK for flags.

> > > > >
> > > > > After the Linux openat experience if you want to add flags.
> > > > > Then all usage of API needs to validate that flags is 0.  
> > > >
> > > > Sorry Stephen, I don't understand what you mean.
> > > > Please could you explain?
> > > >
> > > >  
> > > 
> > > Any time a new field is added that maybe used later you can not guarantee
> > > that existing code correctly initializes the value to zero. What happened with
> > > openat() was that there was a flag value that was originally unused, but since
> > > kernel did not enforce that it was zero; it could not later be used for
> > > extensions.
> > > 
> > > You need to make sure that all reserved fields are initialized.
> > > That means when a private pool is created it is zeroed. And if a flag is new
> > > argument to an API, check for zero at create time.  

+1, this is a good point

> > 
> > I guess we can hard code the value for 0 on the rte_pktmbuf_pool_create function and have some assert on the rte_pktmbuf_pool_init callback (we cannot fail as this function returns void).
> > Any other places you find problematic? 
> 
> No. that should be good. 

Adding an assertion in rte_pktmbuf_pool_init() to check that flag is 0
is a good idea.

In addition, we must ensure that mbp_priv->flags is set to 0 by calling
memset(&mbp_priv, 0, sizeof(mbp_priv)) at several places:

- in rte_pktmbuf_pool_init() when user_mbp_priv == NULL
- in rte_pktmbuf_pool_create_by_ops()
- in examples/ntb/ntb_fwd.c:ntb_mbuf_pool_create()

I think an entry in the release note could be added too.

Olivier

  reply index

Thread overview: 22+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2019-11-18 10:02 Shahaf Shuler
2019-11-18 16:12 ` Stephen Hemminger
2019-11-19  6:35   ` Shahaf Shuler
2019-11-19  9:32 ` Thomas Monjalon
2019-11-19 15:23   ` Shahaf Shuler
2019-11-19 16:25     ` Stephen Hemminger
2019-11-19 22:30       ` Thomas Monjalon
2019-11-19 23:50         ` Stephen Hemminger
2019-11-20  7:01           ` Shahaf Shuler
2019-11-20 15:56             ` Stephen Hemminger
2019-11-21 14:15               ` Olivier Matz [this message]
2019-11-21 12:28 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2] " Shahaf Shuler
2019-11-21 14:31   ` Olivier Matz
2019-11-24  5:52     ` Shahaf Shuler
2019-11-24  5:53   ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3] " Shahaf Shuler
2019-11-24 17:50     ` Stephen Hemminger
2019-11-24 18:05       ` Thomas Monjalon
2019-11-24 18:10         ` Shahaf Shuler
2019-11-25  8:12     ` Olivier Matz
2019-11-25 10:21     ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v4] " Shahaf Shuler
2019-11-25 10:27       ` Olivier Matz
2019-11-25 21:42         ` Thomas Monjalon

Reply instructions:

You may reply publically to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20191121141512.GD14387@glumotte.dev.6wind.com \
    --to=olivier.matz@6wind.com \
    --cc=dev@dpdk.org \
    --cc=shahafs@mellanox.com \
    --cc=stephen@networkplumber.org \
    --cc=thomas@monjalon.net \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link

DPDK patches and discussions

Archives are clonable:
	git clone --mirror http://inbox.dpdk.org/dev/0 dev/git/0.git

	# If you have public-inbox 1.1+ installed, you may
	# initialize and index your mirror using the following commands:
	public-inbox-init -V2 dev dev/ http://inbox.dpdk.org/dev \
		dev@dpdk.org
	public-inbox-index dev


Newsgroup available over NNTP:
	nntp://inbox.dpdk.org/inbox.dpdk.dev


AGPL code for this site: git clone https://public-inbox.org/ public-inbox