DPDK patches and discussions
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Jiawei Zhu <17826875952@163.com>
To: Slava Ovsiienko <viacheslavo@nvidia.com>, "dev@dpdk.org" <dev@dpdk.org>
Cc: "zhujiawei12@huawei.com" <zhujiawei12@huawei.com>,
	Matan Azrad <matan@nvidia.com>,
	Shahaf Shuler <shahafs@nvidia.com>,
	"stable@dpdk.org" <stable@dpdk.org>
Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] net/mlx5: fix wrong segmented packet in Rx
Date: Sat, 27 Feb 2021 00:11:03 +0800
Message-ID: <2623ef20-39e9-fc8b-ca70-c7c450d95cfb@163.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <DM6PR12MB37532C62C8853EBCF0E64C0ADF9F9@DM6PR12MB3753.namprd12.prod.outlook.com>

Hi, Slava

Thanks for reading my patch, my issue may not be clear.
Here I give a possible error.
- we assume segs_n is 4 and we are receiving 4 segments multi-segment 
packet.
- we fail to alloc mbuf when receive the 3th segment,so it will free the 
mbufs which packet chain we have built. Here are the 1st and 2nd segment.
- Rx queue in this stride, the 1st and the 2nd segment are fill the new 
mbuf and there data will be rand, but the 3th and 4th segment are still 
fill the last data. So next if still begin on this stride, it will 
reveice wrong multi-segment packet.

- So we should discarded this packets and pass this stride. After exit 
the loop, we should align the next consumer index.

What Do you thinking?

With best regards
Jiawei

On 2021/2/24 9:20 PM, Slava Ovsiienko wrote:
> Hi, Jiawei
> 
> Thank you for the patch, but It seems I need some clarifications.
> As far I understand the issue:
> 
> - we are in the midst of receiving the multi-segment packet
> - we have some mbufs allocated and packet chain is partially built
> - we fail on allocation replenishing mbuf for the segment
> - we free all the mbuf of the built chain
> - exit from the rx_burtst loop
> - rq_ci is expected to be kept pointing to the beginning of the current
>    stride - it is supposed on next rx_burst() invocation we'll continue
>    Rx queue handling from the stride where we failed
> - on loop exit we see the code:
>     if (unlikely((i == 0) && ((rq_ci >> sges_n) == rxq->rq_ci)))
>            return 0;
>     /* Update the consumer index. */
>     rxq->rq_ci = rq_ci >> sges_n;
> hence, rq_ci is always shifted by sges_n, all increments happened
> during failed packet processing are just discarded, it seems no fix is needed.
> 
> Did I miss something?
> 
> With best regards,
> Slava
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Jiawei Zhu <17826875952@163.com>
>> Sent: Monday, February 15, 2021 12:15
>> To: dev@dpdk.org
>> Cc: zhujiawei12@huawei.com; Matan Azrad <matan@nvidia.com>; Shahaf
>> Shuler <shahafs@nvidia.com>; Slava Ovsiienko <viacheslavo@nvidia.com>;
>> Jiawei Zhu <17826875952@163.com>; stable@dpdk.org
>> Subject: [PATCH] net/mlx5: fix wrong segmented packet in Rx
>>
>> Fixed issue could occur when Mbuf starvation happens in a middle of
>> reception of a segmented packet.
>> In such a situation, after release the segments of that packet, it does not align
>> consumer index to the next stride.
>> This would cause receive a wrong segmented packet.
>>
>> Fixes: 15a756b63734 ("net/mlx5: fix possible NULL dereference in Rx path")
>> Cc: stable@dpdk.org
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Jiawei Zhu <17826875952@163.com>
>> ---
>>   drivers/net/mlx5/mlx5_rxtx.c | 3 +++
>>   1 file changed, 3 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/net/mlx5/mlx5_rxtx.c b/drivers/net/mlx5/mlx5_rxtx.c index
>> 2e4b87c..e3ce9fd 100644
>> --- a/drivers/net/mlx5/mlx5_rxtx.c
>> +++ b/drivers/net/mlx5/mlx5_rxtx.c
>> @@ -1480,6 +1480,9 @@ enum mlx5_txcmp_code {
>>   				rte_mbuf_raw_free(pkt);
>>   				pkt = rep;
>>   			}
>> +			rq_ci >>= sges_n;
>> +			++rq_ci;
>> +			rq_ci <<= sges_n;
>>   			break;
>>   		}
>>   		if (!pkt) {
>> --
>> 1.8.3.1
>>
> 


  reply	other threads:[~2021-02-26 16:11 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2021-02-15 10:15 Jiawei Zhu
2021-02-24 13:20 ` Slava Ovsiienko
2021-02-26 16:11   ` Jiawei Zhu [this message]
2021-03-01  9:13     ` Slava Ovsiienko
2021-03-01 17:01       ` Jiawei Zhu
2021-03-02  8:10         ` Slava Ovsiienko
2021-03-02 16:44           ` Jiawei Zhu
2021-03-01 16:58 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2] " Jiawei Zhu
2021-03-01 17:19   ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3] " Jiawei Zhu
2021-03-02 17:18     ` Slava Ovsiienko
2021-03-04  9:00     ` Raslan Darawsheh
2021-03-13 19:45       ` [dpdk-dev] [dpdk-stable] " Thomas Monjalon

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=2623ef20-39e9-fc8b-ca70-c7c450d95cfb@163.com \
    --to=17826875952@163.com \
    --cc=dev@dpdk.org \
    --cc=matan@nvidia.com \
    --cc=shahafs@nvidia.com \
    --cc=stable@dpdk.org \
    --cc=viacheslavo@nvidia.com \
    --cc=zhujiawei12@huawei.com \
    /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

DPDK patches and discussions

This inbox may be cloned and mirrored by anyone:

	git clone --mirror https://inbox.dpdk.org/dev/0 dev/git/0.git

	# If you have public-inbox 1.1+ installed, you may
	# initialize and index your mirror using the following commands:
	public-inbox-init -V2 dev dev/ https://inbox.dpdk.org/dev \
		dev@dpdk.org
	public-inbox-index dev

Example config snippet for mirrors.
Newsgroup available over NNTP:
	nntp://inbox.dpdk.org/inbox.dpdk.dev


AGPL code for this site: git clone https://public-inbox.org/public-inbox.git