Hi Ivan,
Thanks for the detailed explanation.

While primary termination is a known limitation, I believe the application
or PMD should handle edge cases proactively to ensure stability.


On Tue, Jul 22, 2025 at 9:26 PM Ivan Malov <ivan.malov@arknetworks.am>
wrote:

> Hi Dariusz, Khadem,
>
> On Mon, 21 Jul 2025, Dariusz Sosnowski wrote:
>
> > On Mon, Jul 21, 2025 at 01:59:59PM +0200, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> >> 21/07/2025 13:46, Ivan Malov:
> >>> On Mon, 21 Jul 2025, Dariusz Sosnowski wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> + mlx5 maintainers
> >>>>
> >>>> Thank you for the patch.
> >>>>
> >>>> Could you please include other PMD maintainers (or other maintainers,
> depending on changed code)
> >>>> in the future patches?
> >>>> There is a script which automatically adds maintainers while sending
> a patch.
> >>>> It is described in:
> https://doc.dpdk.org/guides/contributing/patches.html#sending-patches
> >>>>
> >>>> On Mon, Jul 21, 2025 at 03:38:51AM -0400, Khadem Ullah wrote:
> >>>>> When the primary process exits, the shared mlx5 state becomes
> >>>>> unavailable to secondary processes. If a secondary process attempts
> >>>>> to query device information (e.g., via testpmd), a NULL dereference
> >>>>> may occur due to missing shared data.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> This patch adds a check for shared context availability and fails
> >>>>> gracefully while preventing a crash.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Fixes: e60fbd5b24fc ("mlx5: add device configure/start/stop")
> >>>>> Cc: stable@dpdk.org
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Signed-off-by: Khadem Ullah <14pwcse1224@uetpeshawar.edu.pk>
> >>>>> ---
> >>>>>  drivers/net/mlx5/mlx5_ethdev.c | 6 ++++++
> >>>>>  1 file changed, 6 insertions(+)
> >>>>>
> >>>>> diff --git a/drivers/net/mlx5/mlx5_ethdev.c
> b/drivers/net/mlx5/mlx5_ethdev.c
> >>>>> index 68d1c1bfa7..1848f6536a 100644
> >>>>> --- a/drivers/net/mlx5/mlx5_ethdev.c
> >>>>> +++ b/drivers/net/mlx5/mlx5_ethdev.c
> >>>>> @@ -368,6 +368,12 @@ mlx5_dev_infos_get(struct rte_eth_dev *dev,
> struct rte_eth_dev_info *info)
> >>>>>    * Since we need one CQ per QP, the limit is the minimum number
> >>>>>    * between the two values.
> >>>>>    */
> >>>>> + if (priv == NULL || priv->sh == NULL) {
> >>>>> +         DRV_LOG(ERR,
> >>>>> +         "mlx5 shared data unavailable (primary process likely
> exited)");
> >>>>> +         rte_errno = ENODEV;
> >>>>> +         return -rte_errno;
> >>>>> + }
> >>>>
> >>>> I don't think it's an issue on PMD level, but rather on
> >>>> ethdev/multi-process handling level.
> >>>
> >>> I may be very wrong here, but can't the PMD use its internal 'shared'
> state to
> >>> somehow memorise the fact that a secondary process has attached, in
> order to not
> >>> let the primary process close in the first place (before the secondary
> process
> >>> detaches)? Or is this going to violate some established convention?
> >>
> >> It looks to be a good idea.
> >
> > I agree with idea of adding these checks, but not entirely agree with
> > it being at driver level, since all drivers would have to duplicate this
> logic.
> >
> > Drivers already have to go through ethdev library when port is probed
> > on secondary process - rte_eth_dev_attach_secondary() must be
> > called to retrieve port data local to the process and device data shared
> > between processes.
> > Memorizing whether a secondary process is using given port can be added
> > to rte_eth_dev_attach_secondary(), and relevant check for primary
> > process can then be added to rte_eth_dev_close(), so that all drivers
> > benefit.
> >
> > What do you think?
>
> Yes, in general, the idea would be to have a "secondary reference counter"
> field
> in 'rte_eth_dev_data' and have it incremented/decremented/checked in some
> generic places. The issue is that, in addition to 'rte_eth_dev_close', a
> device
> can be "closed" via its respective bus 'remove' method. Yes, there are
> drivers
> that invoke 'rte_eth_dev_close' inside the 'remove' implementation, but
> not all
> of them, unfortunately. For example, take a look at 'af_packet' and
> similar.
>
> On the other hands, there are drivers that use 'rte_eth_dev_create' and its
> counterpart 'rte_eth_dev_destroy' in the implementations of bus
> 'probe/remove',
> but that is also not consistent across the 'drivers/net' tree.
>
> Given all these issues and the fact that ethdev is not the only possible
> device
> type, may be 'rte_device' can house the reference counter, with
> 'rte_dev_probe'
> and 'rte_dev_remove' augmented to do the inrement/decrement/validate thing?
> And, since 'rte_eth_dev_close' invokes direct ethdev 'close' method, also
> add a
> check to over there (and may be to 'rte_eth_dev_reset', too)? May be I'm
> wrong.
>
> However, all of that might still make no sense, given the fact that the
> primary
> process can just die. So, may be I am indeed very wrong and, as Stephen has
> suggested in [1], this issue it to be addressed by clarifying the
> documentation.
>
> [1] https://mails.dpdk.org/archives/dev/2025-July/321865.html
>
> Thank you.
>
> >
> >>
> >>>> When primary process closes the port, ethdev library zeroes and frees
> >>>> device data shared between processes.
> >>>> ethdev port data (rte_eth_dev) on secondary is not updated so it now
> points to
> >>>> invalid data. rte_eth_dev_info_get() is not the only API call
> affected.
> >>>>
> >>>> If the primary process closes the port before exiting
> >>>> (like testpmd does) and it exits before the secondary,
> >>>> the any driver call seems invalid because of that use-after-free
> behavior.
> >>>>
> >>>> @Thomas, @Andrew - Do you happen to know if doing anything on ethdev
> ports
> >>>> in secondary process after primary has gracefully exited is supported?
> >>
> >> No there is no statement about whether it is supported or not.
> >> I think we should at least return an error instead of crashing.
> >>
> >>
> >
>


-- 
Engr. Khadem Ullah,
Software Engineer,
Dreambig Semiconductor Inc
https://dreambigsemi.com/