From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: <3chas3@gmail.com> Received: from mail-it0-f68.google.com (mail-it0-f68.google.com [209.85.214.68]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 176781C8EF; Mon, 14 May 2018 17:01:25 +0200 (CEST) Received: by mail-it0-f68.google.com with SMTP id q4-v6so11550142ite.3; Mon, 14 May 2018 08:01:24 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=/TM+OfopIX9QlosKPQwsgzIVk1p1fSrOibxfWX7OOGQ=; b=dqFr+69b5S02kDtKrdKM10SWRfQ2dwv2E+WyWP3VDuy3/0i1DFPZPehBt2vxiTvU89 fGBBRuMSstolaIj/4M/SE1vKDKnVEjtU3lWfHkCdvStng7FFpOK8NLrPTC5Sf+4xtRuM l9/cRF49LWQdrJbbXvQbIorMjRUYVGcz+nzsdBcyUVwl0miayRiqPa6cqoOMyYgbEXZQ vlTSXSMr4FofiAsDhxV0WrbywHotBaW6XaavO+mRiZvNjC6InRgQtRydsYexi9v8EkqI Im7g1neVMvbsZlxIUw+z3jD4MHBbtHohxO+OFGdpO6wzmI2BrYSvOM8RmarFMwQ2hYc5 j9+w== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=/TM+OfopIX9QlosKPQwsgzIVk1p1fSrOibxfWX7OOGQ=; b=n6OJmHZtUtworZYtjSV2kbuKzR6Ftmo3LptoXlkOr4iU5X+Pnx7PIxIfO2fCnoGObV BQVPQH5V/p96X4PIW4gbcDTOoNC+3EUOIwuEp4PnzttJF3EqlryLxyJbU92vSz2QiqtY Yr9z0roIOwbIgiDU38jSh4JK9ffb1200eQu+YtZXo+ymiMkVGThAWERL2x36SizVC64C fOEiiTPs35VJjjcPBZ+SzZg4vEMYQYn2S8kdJcUH+3kxbVdGWZSKjfOgMKXYbH9qxqfh klYCjt2LjbM2UdcK2lJZSx1ZMZigBJDfbLmAUpyY/KmxfB43Cfqm2NwZNCKR0Wd1zL64 tyTw== X-Gm-Message-State: ALKqPwem1zcYff+dwFJ9XLivEMd0l9IRexKRm5gfOPgDnsLcR0lzDcQy DJxRTZnQWDdWmPOlmPV3V9NtZM3ViyFU24fMB3nuvg== X-Google-Smtp-Source: AB8JxZoPBIh1mNggg4wvZVtlXwaFJgQ4YgBTkzY3exlwqgrTIonf+Lhpftl6lU+VHDHEx/HHtqhEtW+vo0y/LPq5bGk= X-Received: by 2002:a6b:b386:: with SMTP id c128-v6mr10449561iof.50.1526310084405; Mon, 14 May 2018 08:01:24 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.107.143.22 with HTTP; Mon, 14 May 2018 08:01:23 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <1dfd3e27-9870-8851-cf92-7b4e36c49154@intel.com> References: <1524569370-6799-1-git-send-email-matan@mellanox.com> <0aad672c-210a-db8c-53f3-98660fe17f1d@intel.com> <1dfd3e27-9870-8851-cf92-7b4e36c49154@intel.com> From: Chas Williams <3chas3@gmail.com> Date: Mon, 14 May 2018 11:01:23 -0400 Message-ID: To: Ferruh Yigit Cc: "Doherty, Declan" , Matan Azrad , dev@dpdk.org, stable@dpdk.org, Thomas Monjalon Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.15 Subject: Re: [dpdk-stable] [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] net/bonding: fix slave activation simultaneously 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: Mon, 14 May 2018 15:01:25 -0000 There's possibly an issue here: /* If the device isn't started don't handle interrupts */ if (!bonded_eth_dev->data->dev_started) return rc; /* verify that port_id is a valid slave of bonded port */ for (i = 0; i < internals->slave_count; i++) { if (internals->slaves[i].port_id == port_id) { valid_slave = 1; break; } } if (!valid_slave) return rc; /* Synchronize lsc callback parallel calls either by real link event * from the slaves PMDs or by the bonding PMD itself. */ rte_spinlock_lock(&internals->lsc_lock); Nothing keeps the master thread from modifying internals while this is running and your slave port may suddenly no longer be a slave port by the time you get to lsc_lock. I think there is probably an issue dev_started as well. Again, nothing keeps the LSC thread from attempting to activate a slave that may have just been stopped/removed. On Mon, May 14, 2018 at 8:41 AM, Ferruh Yigit wrote: > On 5/14/2018 12:45 PM, Doherty, Declan wrote: > > On 24/04/2018 12:29 PM, Matan Azrad wrote: > >> The bonding PMD decides to activate\deactivate its slaves according to > >> the slaves link statuses. > >> Thus, it registers to the LSC events of the slaves ports and > >> activates\deactivates them from its LSC callbacks called asynchronously > >> by the host thread when the slave link status is changed. > >> > >> In addition, the bonding PMD uses the callback for slave activation > >> when it tries to start it, this operation is probably called by the > >> master thread. > >> > >> Consequently, a slave may be activated in the same time by two > >> different threads and may cause a lot of optional errors, for example, > >> slave mempool recreation with the same name causes an error. > >> > >> Synchronize the critical section in the LSC callback using a special > >> new spinlock. > >> > >> Fixes: 414b202343ce ("bonding: fix initial link status of slave") > >> Fixes: a45b288ef21a ("bond: support link status polling") > >> Cc: stable@dpdk.org > >> > >> Signed-off-by: Matan Azrad > >> --- > > ... > >> > > > > Acked-by: Declan Doherty > > > > Applied to dpdk-next-net/master, thanks. >