From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mails.dpdk.org (mails.dpdk.org [217.70.189.124]) by inbox.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AF48E42B72 for ; Mon, 22 May 2023 17:22:04 +0200 (CEST) Received: from mails.dpdk.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8FF3040EE7; Mon, 22 May 2023 17:22:04 +0200 (CEST) Received: from mail-pl1-f179.google.com (mail-pl1-f179.google.com [209.85.214.179]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1572440EE5 for ; Mon, 22 May 2023 17:22:02 +0200 (CEST) Received: by mail-pl1-f179.google.com with SMTP id d9443c01a7336-1ae54b623c2so57457905ad.3 for ; Mon, 22 May 2023 08:22:02 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=networkplumber-org.20221208.gappssmtp.com; s=20221208; t=1684768922; x=1687360922; h=content-transfer-encoding:mime-version:references:in-reply-to :message-id:subject:cc:to:from:date:from:to:cc:subject:date :message-id:reply-to; bh=BTHYx3mOYdRMxiv66pDu+vhBafufNNL+r2S4JX+DYes=; b=WdSEC2Ve9ytilL26afRyo0V9egGLjPED83V4/gfjg1BkG0M+CjU7BCja6V+XW7cING IytNt/CdKuGjwsmjAXPkEXY5rGaDzuExWb4C7RL7uNtOz1Qofw5yCqnpamINU5SQ/Uv3 rkf1M0HY1RpzPgA7RRn56SFGLLFVALu0ykXiSnk8XSjgg5boh8t7NPKOZXf5XxgT6X5l /E6fTIlP4b59/KTcwUlBRMGB7UltwtgU6N1Kgha97Ht9h3nqMZUwffRNLEW6l5nsUscr Or5nUnaGEMZ09gCCpvkUtx0ICUr9DLMBYFkIFSqqM8PkSykSOnNHQ04at5HzEHsDIv8W l46Q== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20221208; t=1684768922; x=1687360922; h=content-transfer-encoding:mime-version:references:in-reply-to :message-id:subject:cc:to:from:date:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc :subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=BTHYx3mOYdRMxiv66pDu+vhBafufNNL+r2S4JX+DYes=; b=PUOvwIk5vIsfM7wspW6nwdDK/FSj4EH9koRN+8PVWe8bjqnuaGVR17rl6pmxQG2cEO aFUMOJqvz0HP1adP54fTmBb58OuCUgzYIHNCmlQdnEcXPE3ExAshBeVUADfImTclohwT cwNcQHu/8Ym8RVkxntovODtGK5lRSWNXQZcnA2gHYZKud3YIJOe9Ctx+Z+ARVi5Mp8Z3 d8YiQwg8KwGPs+7+khi7eEy93v5wD55gUuoqaJmYHHIWOQOTCDwZ8oz4Wf+2eHG1nmbk Vvvyuo6+TA0jw0KzJ/tgl9Bxx5R3SqgbZaYyLZmbDz6Eg/7nrfByGOTIPVHd37f0E5Ph zQbA== X-Gm-Message-State: AC+VfDyR9EVgp8GiZoiKl/vKn1/BrXG1V0RUR4sGGTURHL7+bEiCb6dH QrUmTuv7pumuSB48aWn7TIlSlQ== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ACHHUZ7qZ9CkM9S7/WtbsJRiKJG2+LwxUExbnZNTh+x1M9EGHrQqc2QEpP8vp46o1JpUpZnxfWUtoA== X-Received: by 2002:a17:902:6b02:b0:1af:b885:df1b with SMTP id o2-20020a1709026b0200b001afb885df1bmr2203493plk.58.1684768922081; Mon, 22 May 2023 08:22:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.local (204-195-120-218.wavecable.com. [204.195.120.218]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id w9-20020a170902d3c900b001a6d08eb054sm5019767plb.78.2023.05.22.08.22.01 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Mon, 22 May 2023 08:22:01 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 22 May 2023 08:21:59 -0700 From: Stephen Hemminger To: "Burakov, Anatoly" Cc: Ruifeng Wang , "olivier.matz@6wind.com" , "dev@dpdk.org" , "stable@dpdk.org" , "thomas@monjalon.net" , Justin He , "Honnappa Nagarahalli" , nd Subject: Re: [PATCH] test/mbuf: fix the forked process segment fault Message-ID: <20230522082159.452ae26c@hermes.local> In-Reply-To: References: <20230522060137.225154-1-ruifeng.wang@arm.com> <2613b0c5-c3a1-60e2-9472-db84fe87cdb3@intel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-BeenThere: stable@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: patches for DPDK stable branches List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: stable-bounces@dpdk.org On Mon, 22 May 2023 11:19:24 +0100 "Burakov, Anatoly" 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.