From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from dpdk.org (dpdk.org [92.243.14.124]) by inbox.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 307B2A04E0 for ; Wed, 27 Nov 2019 11:26:25 +0100 (CET) Received: from [92.243.14.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EE6D81B42A; Wed, 27 Nov 2019 11:26:24 +0100 (CET) Received: from mga09.intel.com (mga09.intel.com [134.134.136.24]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id ACDF028EE; Wed, 27 Nov 2019 11:26:20 +0100 (CET) X-Amp-Result: SKIPPED(no attachment in message) X-Amp-File-Uploaded: False Received: from orsmga005.jf.intel.com ([10.7.209.41]) by orsmga102.jf.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 27 Nov 2019 02:26:19 -0800 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.69,249,1571727600"; d="scan'208";a="383460830" Received: from aburakov-mobl1.ger.corp.intel.com (HELO [10.237.220.92]) ([10.237.220.92]) by orsmga005.jf.intel.com with ESMTP; 27 Nov 2019 02:26:18 -0800 To: Yasufumi Ogawa , David Marchand Cc: "Ananyev, Konstantin" , dev , dpdk stable , Yasufumi Ogawa References: <20190724082031.45546-1-yasufum.o@gmail.com> <20191113214346.33749-1-yasufum.o@gmail.com> <20191113214346.33749-2-yasufum.o@gmail.com> <6a6d7228-f22b-9ba5-c288-1701b738b7c4@intel.com> <61dd1730-3c80-da57-126d-84596b23ff31@gmail.com> From: "Burakov, Anatoly" Message-ID: Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2019 10:26:17 +0000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.9.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Subject: Re: [dpdk-stable] [PATCH v7 1/1] fbarray: fix duplicated fbarray file in secondary 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: , Errors-To: stable-bounces@dpdk.org Sender: "stable" On 26-Nov-19 7:40 PM, Yasufumi Ogawa wrote: > Hi David, > > Sorry for slow reply. > > On 2019/11/14 21:27, David Marchand wrote: >> On Thu, Nov 14, 2019 at 12:42 PM Yasufumi Ogawa >> wrote: >>> >>> On 2019/11/14 2:01, Burakov, Anatoly wrote: >>>> On 13-Nov-19 9:43 PM, yasufum.o@gmail.com wrote: >>>>> From: Yasufumi Ogawa >>>>> >>>>> In secondary_msl_create_walk(), it creates a file for fbarrays with >>>>> its >>>>> PID for reserving unique name among secondary processes. However, it >>>>> does not work if several secondaries run as app containers because >>>>> each >>>>> of containerized secondary has PID 1, and failed to reserve unique >>>>> name >>>>> other than first one. To reserve unique name in each of containers, >>>>> use >>>>> hostname in addition to PID. >>>>> >>>>> Cc: stable@dpdk.org >>>>> >>>>> Signed-off-by: Yasufumi Ogawa >>>>> --- >>>>>    lib/librte_eal/linux/eal/eal_memalloc.c | 16 +++++++++++++--- >>>>>    1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) >>>>> >>>>> diff --git a/lib/librte_eal/linux/eal/eal_memalloc.c >>>>> b/lib/librte_eal/linux/eal/eal_memalloc.c >>>>> index af6d0d023..11de6d4d6 100644 >>>>> --- a/lib/librte_eal/linux/eal/eal_memalloc.c >>>>> +++ b/lib/librte_eal/linux/eal/eal_memalloc.c >>>>> @@ -1365,6 +1365,12 @@ secondary_msl_create_walk(const struct >>>>> rte_memseg_list *msl, >>>>>        struct rte_memseg_list *primary_msl, *local_msl; >>>>>        char name[PATH_MAX]; >>>>>        int msl_idx, ret; >>>>> +    char hostname[HOST_NAME_MAX+1] = { 0 }; >>>>> +    /* filename of secondary's fbarray is defined such as >>>>> +     * "fbarray_memseg-1048576k-0-0_PID_HOSTNAME" and length of PID >>>>> +     * can be 7 digits maximumly. >>>>> +     */ >>>>> +    int fbarray_sec_name_len = 32 + 7 + 1 + HOST_NAME_MAX + 1; >>>> >>>> What does 32 stand for? Maybe #define both 32 and 7 values? >>> Hi Anatoly, >>> >>> Thank you for your comments! If my understanding is correct, the prefix >>> "fbarray_memseg-1048576k-0-0_" is 28 digits and it could be larger if >>> using the size of hugepage or the number of NUMA nodes are larger >>> possibly. However, I think 32 digits is still enough. >>> >>>   > Maybe #define both 32 and 7 values? >>> Yes. I think it should be better to use #define if this values are >>> referred several times. >> >> >> We can truncate to RTE_FBARRAY_NAME_LEN in all cases. >> And iiuc, rte_fbarray_init will refuse any longer name anyway. > Could I confirm the issue? I've understood that it is failed to validate > the name of fbarray in fully_validate() at > "lib/librte_eal/common/eal_common_fbarray.c:697". > > static int > fully_validate(const char *name, unsigned int elt_sz, unsigned int len) > { >         if (name == NULL || elt_sz == 0 || len == 0 || len > INT_MAX) { >                 rte_errno = EINVAL; >                 return -1; >         } > >         if (strnlen(name, RTE_FBARRAY_NAME_LEN) == RTE_FBARRAY_NAME_LEN) { >                 rte_errno = ENAMETOOLONG; >                 return -1; >         } >         return 0; > } > > I should overwrite the definition of RTE_FBARRAY_NAME_LEN as previous > patch in this case, and it causes an ABI breakage, right? If so, I would > like to make the change and give up to update stable release. > > Thanks, > Yasufumi > It seems we're getting into bikeshedding... We can do this without ABI breakage. You could have just used RTE_FBARRAY_NAME_LEN as max fbarray name length for fbarray_sec_name_len (i.e. that would include hostname + pid + whatever else there is). The name, as David has pointed out, would be truncated to RTE_FBARRAY_NAME_LEN anyway (or, more precisely, it will be refused if it's longer than that), so this is the most you can have - so you can just use that as the maximum. -- Thanks, Anatoly