From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-vk1-f194.google.com (mail-vk1-f194.google.com [209.85.221.194]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DF99F4F9C for ; Wed, 10 Apr 2019 10:07:55 +0200 (CEST) Received: by mail-vk1-f194.google.com with SMTP id x84so367472vkd.1 for ; Wed, 10 Apr 2019 01:07:55 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=c9Tght7XIp7faNnyp7xymQ7yJqwFqU/jPMIZ7avoz9w=; b=ngSslQACmwBsAeJRJyQBFkEX5++oBPrC155ZaRdMXrGvwfAWfuvky54lQ7uzXBxTlY SV1gy8tx2Ta0Gs9zEPqFGQvKWsWTTPbftVK9RJ2bR/lEwVxGrJlYDdsAz5u9iW8KXzdR f5Sjuf5DtP6QlsHgsG5wPQdYGpZeXSrRJcqCluF0M/bNX9mmhzGO4v/1ccShsYuU3edE P/y4mYHg9Sl7wTkKAgnRVNLRwoRAkVrgCacv4lo10YB+AJ85WSOVBXenjNk/T34hVvTH lItijfE88mjQDhQ/9t/7z70ekU8/NUvD1vXyMyn1tUe/A3rbtN9u1gzDH8turQ/yT6H0 XWtg== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAUU8qcnFsZbXJPXH53tpjvfYe9mDtOWSIOgnpZq+KLdVPHGLpR6 LOSO6klcS3xHgl/jwPNeVedsYSUmPvJUM+4SNFoN/Q== X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqx3Etl3WhYLBmB3gjQCQZYxY81SGPrzG2xYqLhIPnKzeWnydoQ5uUEcytlh7bzY/NGB4yrC6D3bhMkDuVho8Y4= X-Received: by 2002:a1f:7d4e:: with SMTP id y75mr22651772vkc.53.1554883675332; Wed, 10 Apr 2019 01:07:55 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20190409133622.14729-1-i.maximets@samsung.com> <2419f57d-3283-0fae-745d-002d7ff500e7@samsung.com> In-Reply-To: <2419f57d-3283-0fae-745d-002d7ff500e7@samsung.com> From: David Marchand Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2019 10:07:44 +0200 Message-ID: To: Ilya Maximets Cc: Maxime Coquelin , Tiwei Bie , dev , Jens Freimann , Dariusz Stojaczyk , dpdk stable Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.15 Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] vhost: fix passing destroyed device to destroy callback X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2019 08:07:56 -0000 On Wed, Apr 10, 2019 at 9:53 AM Ilya Maximets wrote: > On 10.04.2019 10:24, David Marchand wrote: > > For vhost maintainers, looking at vhost_user_add_connection, aren't we > leaking a vid on errors ? either when new_connection notifier returns an > error, or after calling destroy_connection. > > I think that you're right. > I spotted that too yesterday while preparing this patch, just had no time > to > check deeper. It should be safe to call 'vhost_destroy_device' in these > cases. > Yes, that's my understanding too. -- David Marchand From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from dpdk.org (dpdk.org [92.243.14.124]) by dpdk.space (Postfix) with ESMTP id EE73FA0096 for ; Wed, 10 Apr 2019 10:07:58 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [92.243.14.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 315EE58C6; Wed, 10 Apr 2019 10:07:57 +0200 (CEST) Received: from mail-vk1-f194.google.com (mail-vk1-f194.google.com [209.85.221.194]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DF99F4F9C for ; Wed, 10 Apr 2019 10:07:55 +0200 (CEST) Received: by mail-vk1-f194.google.com with SMTP id x84so367472vkd.1 for ; Wed, 10 Apr 2019 01:07:55 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=c9Tght7XIp7faNnyp7xymQ7yJqwFqU/jPMIZ7avoz9w=; b=ngSslQACmwBsAeJRJyQBFkEX5++oBPrC155ZaRdMXrGvwfAWfuvky54lQ7uzXBxTlY SV1gy8tx2Ta0Gs9zEPqFGQvKWsWTTPbftVK9RJ2bR/lEwVxGrJlYDdsAz5u9iW8KXzdR f5Sjuf5DtP6QlsHgsG5wPQdYGpZeXSrRJcqCluF0M/bNX9mmhzGO4v/1ccShsYuU3edE P/y4mYHg9Sl7wTkKAgnRVNLRwoRAkVrgCacv4lo10YB+AJ85WSOVBXenjNk/T34hVvTH lItijfE88mjQDhQ/9t/7z70ekU8/NUvD1vXyMyn1tUe/A3rbtN9u1gzDH8turQ/yT6H0 XWtg== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAUU8qcnFsZbXJPXH53tpjvfYe9mDtOWSIOgnpZq+KLdVPHGLpR6 LOSO6klcS3xHgl/jwPNeVedsYSUmPvJUM+4SNFoN/Q== X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqx3Etl3WhYLBmB3gjQCQZYxY81SGPrzG2xYqLhIPnKzeWnydoQ5uUEcytlh7bzY/NGB4yrC6D3bhMkDuVho8Y4= X-Received: by 2002:a1f:7d4e:: with SMTP id y75mr22651772vkc.53.1554883675332; Wed, 10 Apr 2019 01:07:55 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20190409133622.14729-1-i.maximets@samsung.com> <2419f57d-3283-0fae-745d-002d7ff500e7@samsung.com> In-Reply-To: <2419f57d-3283-0fae-745d-002d7ff500e7@samsung.com> From: David Marchand Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2019 10:07:44 +0200 Message-ID: To: Ilya Maximets Cc: Maxime Coquelin , Tiwei Bie , dev , Jens Freimann , Dariusz Stojaczyk , dpdk stable Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.15 Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] vhost: fix passing destroyed device to destroy callback X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org Sender: "dev" Message-ID: <20190410080744.J9rUjLyVOq-QSILtgyBYzOFcx_90xvOWOLny26z92xw@z> On Wed, Apr 10, 2019 at 9:53 AM Ilya Maximets wrote: > On 10.04.2019 10:24, David Marchand wrote: > > For vhost maintainers, looking at vhost_user_add_connection, aren't we > leaking a vid on errors ? either when new_connection notifier returns an > error, or after calling destroy_connection. > > I think that you're right. > I spotted that too yesterday while preparing this patch, just had no time > to > check deeper. It should be safe to call 'vhost_destroy_device' in these > cases. > Yes, that's my understanding too. -- David Marchand