patches for DPDK stable branches
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Ruifeng Wang <Ruifeng.Wang@arm.com>
To: Min Zhou <zhoumin@loongson.cn>,
	"thomas@monjalon.net" <thomas@monjalon.net>,
	"qi.z.zhang@intel.com" <qi.z.zhang@intel.com>,
	"mb@smartsharesystems.com" <mb@smartsharesystems.com>,
	"konstantin.v.ananyev@yandex.ru" <konstantin.v.ananyev@yandex.ru>,
	"drc@linux.vnet.ibm.com" <drc@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	"roretzla@linux.microsoft.com" <roretzla@linux.microsoft.com>,
	"qiming.yang@intel.com" <qiming.yang@intel.com>,
	"wenjun1.wu@intel.com" <wenjun1.wu@intel.com>
Cc: "dev@dpdk.org" <dev@dpdk.org>,
	"stable@dpdk.org" <stable@dpdk.org>,
	"maobibo@loongson.cn" <maobibo@loongson.cn>,
	"jiawenwu@trustnetic.com" <jiawenwu@trustnetic.com>,
	nd <nd@arm.com>
Subject: RE: [PATCH v4] net/ixgbe: add proper memory barriers for some Rx functions
Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2023 10:20:17 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <AS8PR08MB70808C84F77C6F68A6F8E71B9E55A@AS8PR08MB7080.eurprd08.prod.outlook.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20230613094425.2469036-1-zhoumin@loongson.cn>

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Min Zhou <zhoumin@loongson.cn>
> Sent: Tuesday, June 13, 2023 5:44 PM
> To: thomas@monjalon.net; qi.z.zhang@intel.com; mb@smartsharesystems.com;
> konstantin.v.ananyev@yandex.ru; Ruifeng Wang <Ruifeng.Wang@arm.com>;
> drc@linux.vnet.ibm.com; roretzla@linux.microsoft.com; qiming.yang@intel.com;
> wenjun1.wu@intel.com; zhoumin@loongson.cn
> Cc: dev@dpdk.org; stable@dpdk.org; maobibo@loongson.cn; jiawenwu@trustnetic.com
> Subject: [PATCH v4] net/ixgbe: add proper memory barriers for some Rx functions
> 
> Segmentation fault has been observed while running the
> ixgbe_recv_pkts_lro() function to receive packets on the Loongson 3C5000 processor which
> has 64 cores and 4 NUMA nodes.
> 
> From the ixgbe_recv_pkts_lro() function, we found that as long as the first packet has the
> EOP bit set, and the length of this packet is less than or equal to rxq->crc_len, the
> segmentation fault will definitely happen even though on the other platforms. For example,
> if we made the first packet which had the EOP bit set had a zero length by force, the
> segmentation fault would happen on X86.
> 
> Because when processd the first packet the first_seg->next will be NULL, if at the same
> time this packet has the EOP bit set and its length is less than or equal to rxq->crc_len,
> the following loop will be executed:
> 
>     for (lp = first_seg; lp->next != rxm; lp = lp->next)
>         ;
> 
> We know that the first_seg->next will be NULL under this condition. So the expression of
> lp->next->next will cause the segmentation fault.
> 
> Normally, the length of the first packet with EOP bit set will be greater than rxq-
> >crc_len. However, the out-of-order execution of CPU may make the read ordering of the
> status and the rest of the descriptor fields in this function not be correct. The related
> codes are as following:
> 
>         rxdp = &rx_ring[rx_id];
>  #1     staterr = rte_le_to_cpu_32(rxdp->wb.upper.status_error);
> 
>         if (!(staterr & IXGBE_RXDADV_STAT_DD))
>             break;
> 
>  #2     rxd = *rxdp;
> 
> The sentence #2 may be executed before sentence #1. This action is likely to make the
> ready packet zero length. If the packet is the first packet and has the EOP bit set, the
> above segmentation fault will happen.
> 
> So, we should add a proper memory barrier to ensure the read ordering be correct. We also
> did the same thing in the ixgbe_recv_pkts() function to make the rxd data be valid even
> though we did not find segmentation fault in this function.
> 
> Fixes: 8eecb3295ae ("ixgbe: add LRO support")
> Cc: stable@dpdk.org
> 
> Signed-off-by: Min Zhou <zhoumin@loongson.cn>
> ---
> v4:
> - Replace rte_smp_rmb() with rte_atomic_thread_fence() as the proper memory
>   barrier
> ---
> v3:
> - Use rte_smp_rmb() as the proper memory barrier instead of rte_rmb()
> ---
> v2:
> - Make the calling of rte_rmb() for all platforms
> ---
> 
>  drivers/net/ixgbe/ixgbe_rxtx.c | 47 +++++++++++++++-------------------
>  1 file changed, 21 insertions(+), 26 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/net/ixgbe/ixgbe_rxtx.c b/drivers/net/ixgbe/ixgbe_rxtx.c index
> 6cbb992823..61f17cd90b 100644
> --- a/drivers/net/ixgbe/ixgbe_rxtx.c
> +++ b/drivers/net/ixgbe/ixgbe_rxtx.c
> @@ -1817,11 +1817,22 @@ ixgbe_recv_pkts(void *rx_queue, struct rte_mbuf **rx_pkts,
>  		 * of accesses cannot be reordered by the compiler. If they were
>  		 * not volatile, they could be reordered which could lead to
>  		 * using invalid descriptor fields when read from rxd.
> +		 *
> +		 * Meanwhile, to prevent the CPU from executing out of order, we
> +		 * need to use a proper memory barrier to ensure the memory
> +		 * ordering below.
>  		 */
>  		rxdp = &rx_ring[rx_id];
>  		staterr = rxdp->wb.upper.status_error;
>  		if (!(staterr & rte_cpu_to_le_32(IXGBE_RXDADV_STAT_DD)))
>  			break;
> +
> +		/*
> +		 * Use acquire fence to ensure that status_error which includes
> +		 * DD bit is loaded before loading of other descriptor words.
> +		 */
> +		rte_atomic_thread_fence(__ATOMIC_ACQUIRE);
> +
>  		rxd = *rxdp;
> 
>  		/*
> @@ -2088,32 +2099,10 @@ ixgbe_recv_pkts_lro(void *rx_queue, struct rte_mbuf **rx_pkts,
> uint16_t nb_pkts,
> 
>  next_desc:
>  		/*
> -		 * The code in this whole file uses the volatile pointer to
> -		 * ensure the read ordering of the status and the rest of the
> -		 * descriptor fields (on the compiler level only!!!). This is so
> -		 * UGLY - why not to just use the compiler barrier instead? DPDK
> -		 * even has the rte_compiler_barrier() for that.
> -		 *
> -		 * But most importantly this is just wrong because this doesn't
> -		 * ensure memory ordering in a general case at all. For
> -		 * instance, DPDK is supposed to work on Power CPUs where
> -		 * compiler barrier may just not be enough!
> -		 *
> -		 * I tried to write only this function properly to have a
> -		 * starting point (as a part of an LRO/RSC series) but the
> -		 * compiler cursed at me when I tried to cast away the
> -		 * "volatile" from rx_ring (yes, it's volatile too!!!). So, I'm
> -		 * keeping it the way it is for now.
> -		 *
> -		 * The code in this file is broken in so many other places and
> -		 * will just not work on a big endian CPU anyway therefore the
> -		 * lines below will have to be revisited together with the rest
> -		 * of the ixgbe PMD.
> -		 *
> -		 * TODO:
> -		 *    - Get rid of "volatile" and let the compiler do its job.
> -		 *    - Use the proper memory barrier (rte_rmb()) to ensure the
> -		 *      memory ordering below.
> +		 * "Volatile" only prevents caching of the variable marked
> +		 * volatile. Most important, "volatile" cannot prevent the CPU
> +		 * from executing out of order. So, it is necessary to use a
> +		 * proper memory barrier to ensure the memory ordering below.
>  		 */
>  		rxdp = &rx_ring[rx_id];
>  		staterr = rte_le_to_cpu_32(rxdp->wb.upper.status_error);
> @@ -2121,6 +2110,12 @@ ixgbe_recv_pkts_lro(void *rx_queue, struct rte_mbuf **rx_pkts,
> uint16_t nb_pkts,
>  		if (!(staterr & IXGBE_RXDADV_STAT_DD))
>  			break;
> 
> +		/*
> +		 * Use acquire fence to ensure that status_error which includes
> +		 * DD bit is loaded before loading of other descriptor words.
> +		 */
> +		rte_atomic_thread_fence(__ATOMIC_ACQUIRE);
> +
>  		rxd = *rxdp;
> 
>  		PMD_RX_LOG(DEBUG, "port_id=%u queue_id=%u rx_id=%u "
> --
> 2.31.1

Reviewed-by: Ruifeng Wang <ruifeng.wang@arm.com>


  reply	other threads:[~2023-06-13 10:20 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 16+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
     [not found] <20230424090532.367194-1-zhoumin@loongson.cn>
2023-05-06 10:23 ` [PATCH v3] " Min Zhou
2023-05-08  6:03   ` Ruifeng Wang
2023-05-15  2:10     ` Zhang, Qi Z
2023-06-12 10:26       ` Thomas Monjalon
2023-06-12 11:58         ` zhoumin
2023-06-12 12:44           ` Thomas Monjalon
2023-06-13  1:42             ` zhoumin
2023-06-13  3:30               ` Jiawen Wu
2023-06-13 10:12                 ` zhoumin
2023-06-14 10:58               ` Konstantin Ananyev
2023-06-13  9:25             ` Ruifeng Wang
2023-06-20 15:52               ` Thomas Monjalon
2023-06-21  6:50                 ` Ruifeng Wang
2023-06-13  9:44   ` [PATCH v4] " Min Zhou
2023-06-13 10:20     ` Ruifeng Wang [this message]
2023-06-13 12:11       ` Zhang, Qi Z

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly 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=AS8PR08MB70808C84F77C6F68A6F8E71B9E55A@AS8PR08MB7080.eurprd08.prod.outlook.com \
    --to=ruifeng.wang@arm.com \
    --cc=dev@dpdk.org \
    --cc=drc@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
    --cc=jiawenwu@trustnetic.com \
    --cc=konstantin.v.ananyev@yandex.ru \
    --cc=maobibo@loongson.cn \
    --cc=mb@smartsharesystems.com \
    --cc=nd@arm.com \
    --cc=qi.z.zhang@intel.com \
    --cc=qiming.yang@intel.com \
    --cc=roretzla@linux.microsoft.com \
    --cc=stable@dpdk.org \
    --cc=thomas@monjalon.net \
    --cc=wenjun1.wu@intel.com \
    --cc=zhoumin@loongson.cn \
    /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
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).