DPDK patches and discussions
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "Burakov, Anatoly" <anatoly.burakov@intel.com>
To: Stephen Hemminger <stephen@networkplumber.org>
Cc: Ruifeng Wang <Ruifeng.Wang@arm.com>,
	"olivier.matz@6wind.com" <olivier.matz@6wind.com>,
	"dev@dpdk.org" <dev@dpdk.org>,
	"stable@dpdk.org" <stable@dpdk.org>,
	"thomas@monjalon.net" <thomas@monjalon.net>,
	Justin He <Justin.He@arm.com>,
	Honnappa Nagarahalli <Honnappa.Nagarahalli@arm.com>,
	nd <nd@arm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] test/mbuf: fix the forked process segment fault
Date: Mon, 22 May 2023 16:37:09 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <4767d62c-0dd0-dd36-11f7-b0e297de2424@intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20230522082159.452ae26c@hermes.local>

On 5/22/2023 4:21 PM, Stephen Hemminger wrote:
> On Mon, 22 May 2023 11:19:24 +0100
> "Burakov, Anatoly" <anatoly.burakov@intel.com> wrote:
> 
>>>
>>> This case validates mbuf. IMO there is no need to do validation in a secondary process.
>>> Unit test for rte_panic() also uses fork() and could have the same issue.
>>>    
>>
>> In that case, rte_panic() test should be fixed as well.
>>
>> My concern is that ideally, we shouldn't intentionally crash the test
>> app if something goes wrong, and calling rte_panic() accomplishes just
>> that - which is why I suggested running them in secondary processes
>> instead, so that any call into rte_panic happens inside a secondary
>> process, and the main test process doesn't crash even if the test has
>> failed.
>>
> 
> All forks outside of EAL are bad. The test should be removed, it was buggy
> when first written.

I agree that none of the tests (or anything else in DPDK) should fork, 
but some things still crash process (as in, cause rte_panic), and the 
purpose of using fork() was for that. We can rewrite the tests to not 
fork and instead use other methods (such as spinning up secondary 
processes), we don't have to remove them.

-- 
Thanks,
Anatoly


  reply	other threads:[~2023-05-22 15:37 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2023-05-22  6:01 Ruifeng Wang
2023-05-22  9:24 ` Burakov, Anatoly
2023-05-22  9:55   ` Ruifeng Wang
2023-05-22 10:19     ` Burakov, Anatoly
2023-05-22 15:21       ` Stephen Hemminger
2023-05-22 15:37         ` Burakov, Anatoly [this message]
2023-05-23  3:45       ` Ruifeng Wang
2023-05-23 10:12         ` Burakov, Anatoly
2023-06-12 14:47           ` 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=4767d62c-0dd0-dd36-11f7-b0e297de2424@intel.com \
    --to=anatoly.burakov@intel.com \
    --cc=Honnappa.Nagarahalli@arm.com \
    --cc=Justin.He@arm.com \
    --cc=Ruifeng.Wang@arm.com \
    --cc=dev@dpdk.org \
    --cc=nd@arm.com \
    --cc=olivier.matz@6wind.com \
    --cc=stable@dpdk.org \
    --cc=stephen@networkplumber.org \
    --cc=thomas@monjalon.net \
    /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).