From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <yuanhan.liu@linux.intel.com>
Received: from mga04.intel.com (mga04.intel.com [192.55.52.120])
by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 15D53377E
for <dev@dpdk.org>; Mon, 25 Jul 2016 17:19:22 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from fmsmga001.fm.intel.com ([10.253.24.23])
by fmsmga104.fm.intel.com with ESMTP; 25 Jul 2016 08:19:24 -0700
X-ExtLoop1: 1
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.28,419,1464678000"; d="scan'208";a="1013475496"
Received: from yliu-dev.sh.intel.com (HELO yliu-dev) ([10.239.67.162])
by fmsmga001.fm.intel.com with ESMTP; 25 Jul 2016 08:19:21 -0700
Date: Mon, 25 Jul 2016 23:24:12 +0800
From: Yuanhan Liu <yuanhan.liu@linux.intel.com>
To: Maxime Coquelin <maxime.coquelin@redhat.com>
Cc: huawei.xie@intel.com, dev@dpdk.org,
Thomas Monjalon <thomas.monjalon@6wind.com>
Message-ID: <20160725152412.GS28708@yliu-dev.sh.intel.com>
References: <1469455798-19790-1-git-send-email-maxime.coquelin@redhat.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <1469455798-19790-1-git-send-email-maxime.coquelin@redhat.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12)
Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] vhost: fix off-by-one error on nr_desc check
X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: patches and discussions about DPDK <dev.dpdk.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://dpdk.org/ml/options/dev>,
<mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:dev@dpdk.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://dpdk.org/ml/listinfo/dev>,
<mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 25 Jul 2016 15:19:23 -0000
On Mon, Jul 25, 2016 at 04:09:58PM +0200, Maxime Coquelin wrote:
> nr_desc is not an index but the number of descriptors,
> so can be equal to the virtqueue size.
>
> Fixes: a436f53ebfeb ("vhost: avoid dead loop chain")
>
> Cc: Yuanhan Liu <yuanhan.liu@linux.intel.com>
> Signed-off-by: Maxime Coquelin <maxime.coquelin@redhat.com>
Thanks for catching it!
> ---
> Hi Yuanhan,
>
> I faced the bug while testing my indirect descriptor patch, it happens
> as soon as the number of chained descritors is above 2.
>
> But the bug may in theory also be faced with normal descriptors,
In theory, yes, and only in one case, that there is a Tx has 256
descriptors chained. If that happens, I doubt things work well.
So I would say it just happens __in theory__.
> so it might
> be good to have it 16.07?
Even though, it apparently fixes a bug, so I think we could have it
for 16.07.
Acked-by: Yuanhan Liu <yuanhan.liu@linux.intel.com>
--yliu