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 871BDA04DD for ; Tue, 26 Nov 2019 20:40:34 +0100 (CET) Received: from [92.243.14.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2C1BA2B88; Tue, 26 Nov 2019 20:40:34 +0100 (CET) Received: from mail-pg1-f194.google.com (mail-pg1-f194.google.com [209.85.215.194]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5F8042B88; Tue, 26 Nov 2019 20:40:33 +0100 (CET) Received: by mail-pg1-f194.google.com with SMTP id e17so9496382pgd.7; Tue, 26 Nov 2019 11:40:33 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent :mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language:content-transfer-encoding; bh=YINtXvAcSP+K/Kt2rqPKsFe5Qy2rJsO0hxMISY6vx4o=; b=eyzZXnCfQnMOacym60cMgTL2udx4mEhag1bHqI/5yQTYuGcPsIdxrg0x+ResTDu2VB xLZ2LwULJsxBlFDaNUYWQ6UK+JnyGcW8GlKi31zFd2lvkB/21IizTlXeJFu5aWnt8gdi iUYJwCECYsP0qsHJQn8nnDQuBkGp9nG0HQZBoNKfd9Tp37jpY2Hop4DMVNcUICg1pNmq YQToyULYT4pW22cOWtrQ4NeRKbRKaVPSb7tb2Mx7olNYd321ed9iirefQFLjFkzvJYhW KFMSBgTRa4zQg6lN0GWS/GryQ8IbfOuhNCb1eekUgBDtNMYrgc1f2O8qu/zVjSzP3ma2 eslw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language :content-transfer-encoding; bh=YINtXvAcSP+K/Kt2rqPKsFe5Qy2rJsO0hxMISY6vx4o=; b=gMBkZN+RSKRzKsVrgBjhTXUrWyFL2Q2gxAvNXd4E2MaAhdRzzIelvhmdhzm9mYW3Nd MlJlu/ysfHUrMOZqK6eQllzC8BjKMXp+0nxgzQVMkF9I56I4YK+nqI3qbUoq2OUnLzAx TTe78d10JWL/RN/GGkVW7TFe09BlSuSTAdGRJqJXFkSRdQi7WMS0zVbjSbabui2DB3Wp /vu33ikoo5uhqVWmbOuN4g4f1wlItHOz6k9QXrODqqtO+R7+eDZz8G8fbJGB8sp6FoJO asceMYOupgVjrNRAnu+Cckq6suCnRcPHThUL+klaC+qjodKgehpqlI045goo37pNTME+ xocQ== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAX98VOEsznGpKGkH3SyJqSKYZC+Kb7LPwq9E44z2UKAqKZgSzlw 4X0iPULbunsLnPBB+aLUgcI= X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqz9AMQ2lAF1voPojmaf/Ns4GUFeqEacSIeokKqpgrqsAh8yH16jgPN8ujsrZcd240PyxglPyQ== X-Received: by 2002:a65:4cc9:: with SMTP id n9mr220278pgt.426.1574797232396; Tue, 26 Nov 2019 11:40:32 -0800 (PST) Received: from mugwort.local ([2400:4050:c8c2:de00:911a:6e5:59d2:e1c2]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id d7sm14150886pfc.180.2019.11.26.11.40.29 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 26 Nov 2019 11:40:31 -0800 (PST) To: David Marchand Cc: "Burakov, Anatoly" , "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: Yasufumi Ogawa Message-ID: Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2019 04:40:28 +0900 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.14; 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: 7bit 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" 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 > >