From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mails.dpdk.org (mails.dpdk.org [217.70.189.124]) by inbox.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8417845527 for ; Fri, 28 Jun 2024 18:53:13 +0200 (CEST) Received: from mails.dpdk.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 326C240EE7; Fri, 28 Jun 2024 18:53:13 +0200 (CEST) Received: from mail-pj1-f52.google.com (mail-pj1-f52.google.com [209.85.216.52]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 45BB940E96 for ; Fri, 28 Jun 2024 18:53:12 +0200 (CEST) Received: by mail-pj1-f52.google.com with SMTP id 98e67ed59e1d1-2c2dee9d9cfso577473a91.3 for ; Fri, 28 Jun 2024 09:53:12 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20230601; t=1719593591; x=1720198391; darn=dpdk.org; h=content-transfer-encoding:cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from :in-reply-to:references:mime-version:from:to:cc:subject:date :message-id:reply-to; bh=vEiRyGPY+AvLBNLSkyO97t86lwxxQvKym1HKZfPsKCA=; b=Ep/lFRCLkSpAkE4uhEhkNL31BI7qE+NqSraCY3JEy0vvxMojou8i+vC05HnjWDYvwB GmnwqtXHBxR0BE6P2o28HZ09EZ4fOLyKrPFMG+F3wI5mtDeRjzZRfC5G2ExkgnCdFp9E tw28Qymo6Qhvhhq16hfr7Pz6nTDojRxqFzQdG8juaaq7ClQ2VbRV1avREfownQXCjtBK nLhGVR3iIcfwpN9ZB3LhC/0ohUHPRELYgdEESLfCchGKjoHySOiiM020Q86cSilAikNu Z4EjRVM81BKfLy1e9rb0voSUXiJMwSjrEe8ZNjDhpfzBi9Q49SCdvwSpR7Iv+NRIIuXT r5YQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1719593591; x=1720198391; h=content-transfer-encoding:cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from :in-reply-to:references:mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc :subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=vEiRyGPY+AvLBNLSkyO97t86lwxxQvKym1HKZfPsKCA=; b=YvjO101nlQhKmNmPoJUuyM/e+PjkOcoMo7k4vJ7WfRRmxKxnu/26iGpjc3QWfTiP9d KN4PhMaucKGMtnIrinfY7/lcZLiBws3KRMTTxzwquxYzRsygCrVVro4u1ztZIwPKtB/Y nXaSwti09LeGvxLr6iJHRndkhxzkdiDyGivOhi5u019TpbYQheMw4FrN7Z97EVwVS0eH wG+r25XDoZJpcaruFHovcUEY2TKVCu874/mupbS7s14v3rulJ+MZ1oirQkcTeZVmNJbM jhnt5hirsz/DK7TRoSUrmVALDkzIkLp+ouetRGo8Iz8aSp8qgb1Q/jXN+r62mltGrfTn 9Lwg== X-Forwarded-Encrypted: i=1; AJvYcCXB5V71m6SyA2tHmiCLCN3Ze/I6X2Bcv+ekACBL5oxTjt22tzXHJHmDo0SrQWQGPx+TIyuKqqL3QdVEYL+Ofw== X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0Yx9a/DZLT9dGPSt9+kGZv5yupKQ0EYiw41+uIfrBomeNv5VTqZ1 gXnf16F/hSskO28tnPGRiq/1pHTeTkvVKfD3BwzsLaVIFR66JDmosLX3b0PSqxx2QMlu7tjORtv r8a3tLRBADfS5rqDZsDKAnLsqsZw= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IEjqD4glB63/UaEdRT5LsxgK2BUv2D8LggZd0lvXOVR0w+oOpIX/CmWsBcKManwrTH54MfCwbVCkjf1eQD3bOI= X-Received: by 2002:a17:90a:7c4e:b0:2c9:b72:7a1f with SMTP id 98e67ed59e1d1-2c90b728a9bmr3335262a91.28.1719593591136; Fri, 28 Jun 2024 09:53:11 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20240617083049.412242fb@hermes.local> <20240617144013.0bbcece1@hermes.local> In-Reply-To: From: Isaac Boukris Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2024 19:52:59 +0300 Message-ID: Subject: Re: dumpcap: weird failure with six IPv6 hosts in the filter To: Konstantin Ananyev Cc: Stephen Hemminger , users@dpdk.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-BeenThere: users@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: DPDK usage discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: users-bounces@dpdk.org Hi Konstantin On Fri, Jun 28, 2024 at 7:42=E2=80=AFPM Konstantin Ananyev wrote: > > > Hi Isaac, > > > > > On Wed, Jun 19, 2024 at 2:06=E2=80=AFAM Konstantin Ananyev > > wrote: > >> > >> 17.06.2024 22:40, Stephen Hemminger =D0=BF=D0=B8=D1=88=D0=B5=D1=82: > >>> On Mon, 17 Jun 2024 23:43:19 +0300 > >>> Isaac Boukris wrote: > >>> > >>>> On Mon, Jun 17, 2024 at 10:37=E2=80=AFPM Isaac Boukris wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>>> Just a quick update that I still see the issue in my env with the > >>>>>> master branch (24.07.0-rc0), I'm now testing by adding the filter = to > >>>>>> 'sample_filters' in test_bpf.c and running: > >>>>>> time sudo build/app/dpdk-test bpf_convert_autotest > >>>>>> > >>>>>> With 5 hosts it takes less than 2 secs, with 6 it takes about 25 s= ecs, > >>>>>> i'll try to strace it maybe. > >>>>> > >>>>> strace was useless, no syscalls for ~18 secs, not sure how to debug= it > >>>>> further, valgrind / callgrind don't work on dpdk.. > >>>>> > >>>>> It doesn't seem to be about the size though, I was able to produce > >>>>> larger bpf code with ipv4 addresses and it worked fine too. > >>>> > >>>> Debugged a bit further with gdb, it looks like it is stuck in a whil= e > >>>> loop in lib/bpf/bpf_validate.c:evaluate(), there is a comment saying > >>>> "make sure we evaluate each node only once" but it seem to go back a= nd > >>>> forth on the same idx's afaict. > >>> > >>> No idea, only original author understands the verifier. > >>> Having our own unique verifier may not be a good idea. > >>> There some other userspace BPF projects, seems like a good place for > >>> convergence. > >>> > >>> > >>> https://lpc.events/event/17/contributions/1639/attachments/1280/2585/= userspace-ebpf-bpftime-lpc.pdf > >> > >> hi Isaac, > >> please create a bug report in DPDK bugzilla. > >> Ideally with a clear and simple way to reproduce > >> the bug you are facing in the description. > >> I'll try to have a look when I'll have some free time. > >> Thanks > >> Konstantin > > > > Done: > > > > https://bugs.dpdk.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3D1465 > > > In case you didn't get update from the bugzilla, > here is a patch to try, when you'll get a chance: > http://patchwork.dpdk.org/project/dpdk/list/?series=3D32321 I tested it yesterday and it solves the bug for me, the whole test takes less than a second now and dumpcap works just fine! I've posted the feedback on the bug :)