From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mx1.redhat.com (mx1.redhat.com [209.132.183.28]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 734AA1B5E1; Tue, 9 Oct 2018 19:53:31 +0200 (CEST) Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx05.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.15]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A1EF3308421C; Tue, 9 Oct 2018 17:53:30 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [10.36.112.13] (unknown [10.36.112.13]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7673F7E57C; Tue, 9 Oct 2018 17:53:24 +0000 (UTC) To: Tiwei Bie Cc: dev@dpdk.org, zhihong.wang@intel.com, jfreimann@redhat.com, nicknickolaev@gmail.com, i.maximets@samsung.com, bruce.richardson@intel.com, alejandro.lucero@netronome.com, dgilbert@redhat.com, stable@dpdk.org References: <20181008152557.14275-1-maxime.coquelin@redhat.com> <20181008152557.14275-2-maxime.coquelin@redhat.com> <20181009080333.GA23638@debian> <20181009125424.GA14600@tbie-MOBL1.ccr.corp.intel.com> From: Maxime Coquelin Message-ID: <31e233b2-6418-df30-28f8-536ae131331e@redhat.com> Date: Tue, 9 Oct 2018 19:53:21 +0200 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.9.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20181009125424.GA14600@tbie-MOBL1.ccr.corp.intel.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.79 on 10.5.11.15 X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.5.16 (mx1.redhat.com [10.5.110.40]); Tue, 09 Oct 2018 17:53:30 +0000 (UTC) Subject: Re: [dpdk-stable] [PATCH v4 01/19] vhost: fix messages error checks X-BeenThere: stable@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: patches for DPDK stable branches List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 09 Oct 2018 17:53:32 -0000 On 10/09/2018 02:54 PM, Tiwei Bie wrote: > On Tue, Oct 09, 2018 at 02:20:47PM +0200, Maxime Coquelin wrote: >> On 10/09/2018 10:03 AM, Tiwei Bie wrote: >>> On Mon, Oct 08, 2018 at 05:25:39PM +0200, Maxime Coquelin wrote: >>>> Return of message handling has now changed to an enum that can >>>> take non-negative value that is not zero in case a reply is >>>> needed. But the code checking the variable afterwards has not >>>> been updated, leading to success messages handling being >>>> treated as errors. >>>> >>>> Fixes: 2f270595c05d ("vhost: rework message handling as a callback array") >>> >>> Fixline should be: >>> Fixes: 0bff510b5ea6 ("vhost: unify message handling function signature") >>> >>>> >>>> Signed-off-by: Maxime Coquelin >>>> Acked-by: Ilya Maximets >>>> --- >>>> lib/librte_vhost/vhost_user.c | 6 +++--- >>>> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) >>>> >>>> diff --git a/lib/librte_vhost/vhost_user.c b/lib/librte_vhost/vhost_user.c >>>> index 7ef3fb4a4..060b41893 100644 >>>> --- a/lib/librte_vhost/vhost_user.c >>>> +++ b/lib/librte_vhost/vhost_user.c >>>> @@ -1783,7 +1783,7 @@ vhost_user_msg_handler(int vid, int fd) >>>> } >>>> skip_to_post_handle: >>>> - if (!ret && dev->extern_ops.post_msg_handle) { >>>> + if (ret != VH_RESULT_ERR && dev->extern_ops.post_msg_handle) { >>>> uint32_t need_reply; >>>> ret = (*dev->extern_ops.post_msg_handle)( >>>> @@ -1800,10 +1800,10 @@ vhost_user_msg_handler(int vid, int fd) >>>> vhost_user_unlock_all_queue_pairs(dev); >>>> if (msg.flags & VHOST_USER_NEED_REPLY) { >>>> - msg.payload.u64 = !!ret; >>>> + msg.payload.u64 = ret == VH_RESULT_ERR; >>>> msg.size = sizeof(msg.payload.u64); >>>> send_vhost_reply(fd, &msg); >>>> - } else if (ret) { >>>> + } else if (ret == VH_RESULT_ERR) { >>>> RTE_LOG(ERR, VHOST_CONFIG, >>>> "vhost message handling failed.\n"); >>>> return -1; >>> >>> We also need to take care of the return value of .pre_msg_handle() >>> and .post_msg_handle(). Otherwise, errors could be ignored. >> >> Right. What I plan to do is setting ret to VH_RESULT_ERR if >> pre/post_msg_handler() return is negative. >> >> Does that sound reasonable to you? >> >> I see that vhost-crypto does not respect the callbacks documentation wrt >> to return value, and we might want to change the callbacks documentation >> so that it returns an enum vh_result. > > I think it would be better to change the callbacks documentation > to ask them to return enum vh_result as well. Yes, that's what I meant. So I'm adding to this patch the fix to the callback return type to enum vh_result, and convert vhost_crypto to it. Cheers, Maxime >> >>>> -- >>>> 2.17.1 >>>>