From: fengchengwen <fengchengwen@huawei.com>
To: Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yigit@amd.com>,
Konstantin Ananyev <konstantin.v.ananyev@yandex.ru>,
<dev@dpdk.org>,
Konstantin Ananyev <konstantin.ananyev@huawei.com>,
Honnappa Nagarahalli <Honnappa.Nagarahalli@arm.com>,
Stephen Hemminger <stephen@networkplumber.org>,
Ruifeng Wang <Ruifeng.Wang@arm.com>,
"Ajit Khaparde (ajit.khaparde@broadcom.com)"
<ajit.khaparde@broadcom.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] ethdev: fix race condition in fast-path ops setup
Date: Mon, 6 Mar 2023 09:57:08 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <3829a532-63b3-5d49-77d0-d749e44ca902@huawei.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <52296fe2-d9f6-1a24-e577-e5271a69a053@amd.com>
On 2023/3/4 1:19, Ferruh Yigit wrote:
> On 2/26/2023 5:22 PM, Konstantin Ananyev wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> If ethdev enqueue or dequeue function is called during
>>>>>>>>>>>> eth_dev_fp_ops_setup(), it may get pre-empted after setting the
>>>>>>>>>>>> function pointers, but before setting the pointer to port data.
>>>>>>>>>>>> In this case the newly registered enqueue/dequeue function will
>>>>>>>>>>>> use dummy port data and end up in seg fault.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> This patch moves the updation of each data pointers before
>>>>>>>>>>>> updating corresponding function pointers.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Fixes: c87d435a4d79 ("ethdev: copy fast-path API into separate
>>>>>>>>>>>> structure")
>>>>>>>>>>>> Cc: stable@dpdk.org
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Why is something calling enqueue/dequeue when device is not fully
>>>>>>> started.
>>>>>>>>> A correctly written application would not call rx/tx burst until
>>>>>>>>> after ethdev start had finished.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Please refer the eb0d471a894 (ethdev: add proactive error handling
>>>>>>>> mode), when driver recover itself, the application may still invoke
>>>>>>> enqueue/dequeue API.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Right now DPDK ethdev layer *does not* provide synchronization
>>>>>>> mechanisms between data-path and control-path functions.
>>>>>>> That was a deliberate deisgn choice. If we want to change that
>>>>>>> rule, then I
>>>>>>> suppose we need a community consensus for it.
>>>>>>> I think that if the driver wants to provide some sort of error
>>>>>>> recovery
>>>>>>> procedure, then it has to provide some synchronization mechanism
>>>>>>> inside it
>>>>>>> between data-path and control-path functions.
>>>>>>> Actually looking at eb0d471a894 (ethdev: add proactive error handling
>>>>>>> mode), and following patches I wonder how it creeped in?
>>>>>>> It seems we just introduced a loophole for race condition with this
>>>>>>> approach...
>>>>>
>>>>> Could you try to describe the specific scenario of loophole ?
>>>>
>>>> Ok, as I understand the existing mechanism:
>>>>
>>>> When PMD wants to start a recovery it has to:
>>>> - invoke rte_eth_dev_callback_process(RTE_ETH_EVENT_ERR_RECOVERING);
>>>> That supposed to call user provided callback. After callback is
>>>> finished PMD assumes
>>>> that user is aware that recovery is about to start and should
>>>> make some precautions.
>>>> - when recovery is finished it invokes another callback:
>>>> RTE_ETH_EVENT_RECOVERY_(SUCCESS/FAILED). After that user either
>>>> can continue to
>>>> use port or have to treat is as faulty.
>>>>
>>>> The idea is ok in principle, but there is a problem.
>>>>
>>>> lib/ethdev/rte_ethdev.h:
>>>> /** Port recovering from a hardware or firmware error.
>>>> * If PMD supports proactive error recovery,
>>>> * it should trigger this event to notify application
>>>> * that it detected an error and the recovery is being started.
>>>>
>>>> <<< !!!!!
>>>> * Upon receiving the event, the application should not
>>>> invoke any control path API
>>>> * (such as rte_eth_dev_configure/rte_eth_dev_stop...) until
>>>> receiving
>>>> * RTE_ETH_EVENT_RECOVERY_SUCCESS or
>>>> RTE_ETH_EVENT_RECOVERY_FAILED event.
>>>> * The PMD will set the data path pointers to dummy functions,
>>>> * and re-set the data path pointers to non-dummy functions
>>>> * before reporting RTE_ETH_EVENT_RECOVERY_SUCCESS event.
>>>> <<< !!!!!
>>>>
>>>> That part is just wrong I believe.
>>>> It should be:
>>>> Upon receiving the event, the application should not invoke any *both
>>>> control and data-path* API
>>>> until receiving RTE_ETH_EVENT_RECOVERY_SUCCESS or
>>>> RTE_ETH_EVENT_RECOVERY_FAILED event.
>>>> Resetting data path pointers to dummy functions by PMD *before* invoking
>>>> rte_eth_dev_callback_process(RTE_ETH_EVENT_ERR_RECOVERING);
>>>> introduces a race-condition with data-path threads, as such thread
>>>> could already be inside RX/TX function
>>>> or can already read RX/TX function/data pointers and be about to use
>>>> them.
>>>
>>> Current practices: the PMDs already add some delay after set Rx/Tx
>>> callback to dummy, and plus the DPDK
>>> worker thread is busypolling, the probability of occurence in reality
>>> is zero. But in theoretically exist
>>> the above race-condition.
>>
>>
>> Adding delay might make a problem a bit less reproducible,
>> but it doesn't fix it.
>> The bug is still there.
>>
>>
>>>
>>>> And right now rte_ethdev layer doesn't provide any mechanism to check
>>>> it or wait when they'll finish, etc.
>>>
>>> Yes
>>>
>>>>
>>>> So, probably the simplest way to fix it with existing DPDK design:
>>>> - user level callback RTE_ETH_EVENT_ERR_RECOVERING should return
>>>> only after it ensures that *all*
>>>> application threads (and processes) stopped using either control
>>>> or data-path functions for that port
>>>
>>> Agree
>>>
>>>> (yes it means that application that wants to use this feature has
>>>> to provide its own synchronization mechanism
>>>> around data-path functions (RX/TX) that it is going to use).
>>>> - after that PMD is safe to reset rte_eth_fp_ops[] values to dummy ones.
>>>>
>>>> And message to all PMD developers:
>>>> *please stop updating rte_eth_fp_ops[] on your own*.
>>>> That's a bad practice and it is not supposed to do things that way.
>>>> There is a special API provided for these purposes:
>>>> eth_dev_fp_ops_reset(), eth_dev_fp_ops_setup(), so use it.
>>>
>>> This two function is in private.h, so it should be expose to public
>>> header file.
>>
>> You mean we need to move these functions declarations into ethdev_driver.h?
>> If so, then yes, I think we probably do.
>>
>>
>
>
> What about making slightly different version available to drivers, which
> only updates function pointers, but not 'fpo->rxq' / 'fpo->txq'.
>
> This way driver can switch to between dummy and real burst function
> without worrying Rx/Tx queue validity.
>
> @Chengwen, @Ruifeng, can this solve the issue for relaxed memory
> ordering systems?
For the problem described in this commit, I think it's OK for solve the RMO.
>
>
>
>>>>
>>>> BTW, I don't see any implementation for RTE_ETH_EVENT_ERR_RECOVERING
>>>> within
>>>> either testpmd or any other example apps.
>>>> Am I missing something?
>>>
>>> Currently it just promote the event.
>>
>>
>> Ok, can I suggest then to add a proper usage for into in testpmd?
>> It looks really strange that we add new feature into ethdev (and 2 PMDs),
>> but didn't provide any way for users to test it.
>>
>>>
>>>> If not, then probably it could be a good starting point - let's
>>>> incorporate it inside testpmd
>>>> (new forwarding engine probably) so everyone can test/try it.
>>>>
>>>> * It means that the application cannot send or receive any
>>>> packets
>>>> * during this period.
>>>> * @note Before the PMD reports the recovery result,
>>>> * the PMD may report the RTE_ETH_EVENT_ERR_RECOVERING event
>>>> again,
>>>> * because a larger error may occur during the recovery.
>>>> */
>>>> RTE_ETH_EVENT_ERR_RECOVERING,
>>>>
>>>>>>> It probably needs to be either deprecated or reworked.
>>>>>> Looking at the commit, it does not say anything about the data
>>>>>> plane functions which probably means, the error recovery is
>>>>> happening within the data plane thread. What happens to other data
>>>>> plane threads that are polling the same port on which the error
>>>>> recovery is happening?
>>>>>
>>>>> The commit log says: "the PMD sets the data path pointers to dummy
>>>>> functions".
>>>>>
>>>>> So the data plane threads will receive non-packet and send zero with
>>>>> port which in error recovery.
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Also, the commit log says that while the error recovery is under
>>>>>> progress, the application should not call any control plane APIs. Does
>>>>> that mean, the application has to check for error condition every
>>>>> time it calls a control plane API?
>>>>>
>>>>> If application has not register event (RTE_ETH_EVENT_ERR_RECOVERING)
>>>>> callback, it could calls control plane API, but it will return
>>>>> failed.
>>>>> If application has register above callback, it can wait for recovery
>>>>> result, or direct call without wait but this will return failed.
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The commit message also says that "PMD makes sure the control path
>>>>>> operations failed with retcode -EBUSY". It does not say how it
>>>>> does this. But, any communication from the PMD thread to control
>>>>> plane thread may introduce race conditions if not done correctly.
>>>>>
>>>>> First there are no PMD thread, do you mean eal-intr-thread ?
>>>>>
>>>>> As for this question, you can see PMDs which already implement it,
>>>>> they both provides mutual exclusion protection.
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Would something like this work better?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Note: there is another bug in current code. The check for link
>>>>>>>>> state
>>>>>>>>> interrupt and link_ops could return -ENOTSUP and leave device in
>>>>>>> indeterminate state.
>>>>>>>>> The check should be done before calling PMD.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> diff --git a/lib/ethdev/rte_ethdev.c b/lib/ethdev/rte_ethdev.c
>>>>>>>>> index
>>>>>>>>> 0266cc82acb6..d6c163ed85e7 100644
>>>>>>>>> --- a/lib/ethdev/rte_ethdev.c
>>>>>>>>> +++ b/lib/ethdev/rte_ethdev.c
>>>>>>>>> @@ -1582,6 +1582,14 @@ rte_eth_dev_start(uint16_t port_id)
>>>>>>>>> return 0;
>>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> + if (dev->data->dev_conf.intr_conf.lsc == 0 &&
>>>>>>>>> + dev->dev_ops->link_update == NULL) {
>>>>>>>>> + RTE_ETHDEV_LOG(INFO,
>>>>>>>>> + "Device with port_id=%"PRIu16" link update not
>>>>>>> supported\n",
>>>>>>>>> + port_id);
>>>>>>>>> + return -ENOTSUP;
>>>>>>>>> + }
>>>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>>>> ret = rte_eth_dev_info_get(port_id, &dev_info);
>>>>>>>>> if (ret != 0)
>>>>>>>>> return ret;
>>>>>>>>> @@ -1591,9 +1599,7 @@ rte_eth_dev_start(uint16_t port_id)
>>>>>>>>> eth_dev_mac_restore(dev, &dev_info);
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> diag = (*dev->dev_ops->dev_start)(dev);
>>>>>>>>> - if (diag == 0)
>>>>>>>>> - dev->data->dev_started = 1;
>>>>>>>>> - else
>>>>>>>>> + if (diag != 0)
>>>>>>>>> return eth_err(port_id, diag);
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> ret = eth_dev_config_restore(dev, &dev_info, port_id); @@
>>>>>>>>> -1611,16
>>>>>>>>> +1617,18 @@ rte_eth_dev_start(uint16_t port_id)
>>>>>>>>> return ret;
>>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> - if (dev->data->dev_conf.intr_conf.lsc == 0) {
>>>>>>>>> - if (*dev->dev_ops->link_update == NULL)
>>>>>>>>> - return -ENOTSUP;
>>>>>>>>> - (*dev->dev_ops->link_update)(dev, 0);
>>>>>>>>> - }
>>>>>>>>> -
>>>>>>>>> /* expose selection of PMD fast-path functions */
>>>>>>>>> eth_dev_fp_ops_setup(rte_eth_fp_ops + port_id, dev);
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> + /* ensure state is set before marking device ready */
>>>>>>>>> + rte_smp_wmb();
>>>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>>>> rte_ethdev_trace_start(port_id);
>>>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>>>> + /* Update current link state */
>>>>>>>>> + if (dev->data->dev_conf.intr_conf.lsc == 0)
>>>>>>>>> + (*dev->dev_ops->link_update)(dev, 0);
>>>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>>>> return 0;
>>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> .
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>
>
> .
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2023-03-06 1:57 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 29+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2023-02-20 6:08 [PATCH 1/2] eventdev: fix race condition in fast-path set function Ashok Kaladi
2023-02-20 6:08 ` [PATCH 2/2] ethdev: fix race condition in fast-path ops setup Ashok Kaladi
2023-02-20 6:57 ` fengchengwen
2023-02-21 7:24 ` Ruifeng Wang
2023-02-21 17:00 ` Stephen Hemminger
2023-02-22 1:07 ` fengchengwen
2023-02-22 9:41 ` Ruifeng Wang
2023-02-22 10:41 ` Konstantin Ananyev
2023-02-22 22:48 ` Honnappa Nagarahalli
2023-02-23 1:15 ` Stephen Hemminger
2023-02-23 4:47 ` Honnappa Nagarahalli
2023-02-23 4:40 ` Honnappa Nagarahalli
2023-02-23 8:23 ` fengchengwen
2023-02-23 13:31 ` Konstantin Ananyev
2023-02-25 1:32 ` fengchengwen
2023-02-26 17:22 ` Konstantin Ananyev
2023-02-27 2:56 ` fengchengwen
2023-02-27 19:08 ` Konstantin Ananyev
2023-03-03 17:19 ` Ferruh Yigit
2023-03-06 1:57 ` fengchengwen [this message]
2023-03-06 6:13 ` Ruifeng Wang
2023-03-06 10:32 ` Konstantin Ananyev
2023-03-06 11:17 ` Ajit Khaparde
2023-03-06 11:57 ` Ferruh Yigit
2023-03-06 12:36 ` Konstantin Ananyev
2023-02-28 23:57 ` Honnappa Nagarahalli
2023-02-20 7:01 ` fengchengwen
2023-02-20 9:44 ` Konstantin Ananyev
2023-03-03 16:49 ` Ferruh Yigit
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=3829a532-63b3-5d49-77d0-d749e44ca902@huawei.com \
--to=fengchengwen@huawei.com \
--cc=Honnappa.Nagarahalli@arm.com \
--cc=Ruifeng.Wang@arm.com \
--cc=ajit.khaparde@broadcom.com \
--cc=dev@dpdk.org \
--cc=ferruh.yigit@amd.com \
--cc=konstantin.ananyev@huawei.com \
--cc=konstantin.v.ananyev@yandex.ru \
--cc=stephen@networkplumber.org \
/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).