RE: [PATCH v2] net/ixgbe: add proper memory barriers for some Rx functions

["Zhang, Qi Z" <qi.z.zhang@intel.com>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Min Zhou <zhoumin@loongson.cn>
> Sent: Monday, April 24, 2023 5:06 PM
> To: Yang, Qiming <qiming.yang@intel.com>; Wu, Wenjun1
> <wenjun1.wu@intel.com>; zhoumin@loongson.cn
> Cc: dev@dpdk.org; maobibo@loongson.cn
> Subject: [PATCH v2] net/ixgbe: add proper memory barriers for some Rx
> functions
> 
> Segmentation fault has been observed while running the
> ixgbe_recv_pkts_lro() function to receive packets on the Loongson 3C5000
> processor which has 64 cores and 4 NUMA nodes.
> 
> From the ixgbe_recv_pkts_lro() function, we found that as long as the first
> packet has the EOP bit set, and the length of this packet is less than or equal
> to rxq->crc_len, the segmentation fault will definitely happen even though
> on the other platforms, such as X86.
> 
> Because when processd the first packet the first_seg->next will be NULL, if at
> the same time this packet has the EOP bit set and its length is less than or
> equal to rxq->crc_len, the following loop will be excecuted:
> 
>     for (lp = first_seg; lp->next != rxm; lp = lp->next)
>         ;
> 
> We know that the first_seg->next will be NULL under this condition. So the
> expression of lp->next->next will cause the segmentation fault.
> 
> Normally, the length of the first packet with EOP bit set will be greater than
> rxq->crc_len. However, the out-of-order execution of CPU may make the
> read ordering of the status and the rest of the descriptor fields in this
> function not be correct. The related codes are as following:
> 
>         rxdp = &rx_ring[rx_id];
>  #1     staterr = rte_le_to_cpu_32(rxdp->wb.upper.status_error);
> 
>         if (!(staterr & IXGBE_RXDADV_STAT_DD))
>             break;
> 
>  #2     rxd = *rxdp;
> 
> The sentence #2 may be executed before sentence #1. This action is likely to
> make the ready packet zero length. If the packet is the first packet and has
> the EOP bit set, the above segmentation fault will happen.
> 
> So, we should add rte_rmb() to ensure the read ordering be correct. We also
> did the same thing in the ixgbe_recv_pkts() function to make the rxd data be
> valid even thougth we did not find segmentation fault in this function.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Min Zhou <zhoumin@loongson.cn>
> ---
> v2:
> - Make the calling of rte_rmb() for all platforms
> ---
>  drivers/net/ixgbe/ixgbe_rxtx.c | 3 +++
>  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/net/ixgbe/ixgbe_rxtx.c b/drivers/net/ixgbe/ixgbe_rxtx.c
> index c9d6ca9efe..302a5ab7ff 100644
> --- a/drivers/net/ixgbe/ixgbe_rxtx.c
> +++ b/drivers/net/ixgbe/ixgbe_rxtx.c
> @@ -1823,6 +1823,8 @@ ixgbe_recv_pkts(void *rx_queue, struct rte_mbuf
> **rx_pkts,
>  		staterr = rxdp->wb.upper.status_error;
>  		if (!(staterr & rte_cpu_to_le_32(IXGBE_RXDADV_STAT_DD)))
>  			break;
> +
> +		rte_rmb();

So "volatile" does not prevent re-order with Loongson compiler?


>  		rxd = *rxdp;
> 
>  		/*
> @@ -2122,6 +2124,7 @@ ixgbe_recv_pkts_lro(void *rx_queue, struct
> rte_mbuf **rx_pkts, uint16_t nb_pkts,
>  		if (!(staterr & IXGBE_RXDADV_STAT_DD))
>  			break;
> 
> +		rte_rmb();
>  		rxd = *rxdp;
> 
>  		PMD_RX_LOG(DEBUG, "port_id=%u queue_id=%u rx_id=%u "
> --
> 2.31.1