From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mga09.intel.com (mga09.intel.com [134.134.136.24]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9E0FD8D38 for ; Mon, 9 May 2016 20:17:31 +0200 (CEST) Received: from orsmga003.jf.intel.com ([10.7.209.27]) by orsmga102.jf.intel.com with ESMTP; 09 May 2016 11:17:31 -0700 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.24,601,1455004800"; d="scan'208";a="802436093" Received: from yliu-dev.sh.intel.com (HELO yliu-dev) ([10.239.67.162]) by orsmga003.jf.intel.com with ESMTP; 09 May 2016 11:17:30 -0700 Date: Mon, 9 May 2016 11:22:04 -0700 From: Yuanhan Liu To: "Xie, Huawei" Cc: "dev@dpdk.org" , "Michael S. Tsirkin" Message-ID: <20160509182204.GF5641@yliu-dev.sh.intel.com> References: <1462603224-29510-1-git-send-email-yuanhan.liu@linux.intel.com> <1462603224-29510-5-git-send-email-yuanhan.liu@linux.intel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12) Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 4/6] vhost: workaround stale vring base X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: patches and discussions about DPDK List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 09 May 2016 18:17:32 -0000 On Mon, May 09, 2016 at 04:25:38PM +0000, Xie, Huawei wrote: > On 5/7/2016 2:36 PM, Yuanhan Liu wrote: > > However, Michael claims some concerns: he made a good point: a crash > > is happening means some memory is corrupted, and it could be the virtio > > memory being corrupted. In such case, nothing will work without the > > reset. > > I don't get this point. What is the scenario? It's not a specific scenario, just a hypothetic one. > For the crash of virtio frontend driver, i remember we discussed before, > we have no good recipe but some workaround. The user space frontend > driver crashes, and its memory is reallocated to other instances, but > vhost is still writing to that memory. However this has nothing to do > with vhost reconnect. Hmm, yes, seems like another good point to me. This patch seems like a fix but not a workaround then :) --yliu