Re: [dpdk-stable] [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2] Fixes: ethdev: secondary process change shared memory

[Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yigit@intel.com>]

On 1/16/2020 11:35 AM, 方统浩50450 wrote:
> 
> 
>>@Fang, only can you please make a new version to update the
>>'rte_eth_copy_pci_info' function comment to document shared data is not updated
>>for the secondary process?
> 
>>So this suggest going on with Fang's patch. I only requested an additional note
>>in function comment related to this secondary check.
> 
> @Ferruh Yigit
> Should I update a new version patch of "rte_eth_copy_pci_info" function and explain
> wthether the regular functioning of secondary process is affected or not?
> I cant figure out what you need me to do.

Hi Fang,

Yes can you please send a new version of your patch.
In new version, additionally update the 'rte_eth_copy_pci_info()' function
comment to document that function updates 'eth_dev->data' only for primary process.

Thanks,
ferruh

> 
> 
> 发件人：Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yigit@intel.com>
> 发送日期：2020-01-16 17:04:09
> 收件人：Andrew Rybchenko <arybchenko@solarflare.com>,Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net>
> 抄送人："方统浩50450" <fangtonghao@sangfor.com.cn>,dev@dpdk.org,stable@dpdk.org,jia.guo@intel.com,cunming.liang@intel.com,qi.z.zhang@intel.com,jungle845943968@outlook.com,Jerin Jacob Kollanukkaran <jerinj@marvell.com>
> 主题：Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2] Fixes: ethdev: secondary process change shared memory>On 1/16/2020 7:43 AM, Andrew Rybchenko wrote:
>>> On 1/15/20 11:43 PM, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
>>>> 15/01/2020 19:35, Ferruh Yigit:
>>>>> On 1/15/2020 6:49 AM, 方统浩50450 wrote:
>>>>>> Hi Ferruh, thanks for your message.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> We developed a ethtool-dpdk which is secondary process based dpdk 17.08 version. Our device
>>>>>> support hotplug detach, but hotplug deatch is failed when we use ethtool-dpdk.We found the
>>>>>> secondary process will change the shared memory when initializing.Secondary process calls
>>>>>> "rte_eth_dev_pci_allocate" function and enters "rte_eth_copy_pci_info" function.
>>>>>> (rte_eth_dev_pci_generic_probe -> rte_eth_dev_pci_allocate -> rte_eth_copy_pci_info)
>>>>>> Then it sets the value of struct "rte_eth_dev_data.dev_flags" to zero.In our platform, this value
>>>>>> is equal to 0x0003.(RTE_ETH_DEV_DETACHABLE | RTE_ETH_DEV_INTR_LSC),but after reset
>>>>>> the "dev_flags", the value changed to 0x0002.(RTE_ETH_DEV_DETACHABLE).So, our device hotplug
>>>>>> detach is failed.I found the similar problem in other dpdk version, include dpdk 19.11.Even though
>>>>>> the deivce hotplug detach is discarded,but i think the shared memory changed is unexpected by primary
>>>>>> process.
>>> 
>>> Hold on, just for my understanding. As far as I can see
>>> RTE_ETH_DEV_DETACHABLE was removed in 17.11. Does it
>>> change something in above description?
>>
>>Overall secondary overwrites primary values, I think we should fix it
>>independent from the flags involved.
>>
>>> 
>>>>> I agree this is the problem.
>>>>> In the driver code, 'rte_eth_copy_pci_info' is called only by primary process,
>>>>>
>>>>> but the generic code is faulty.
>>>>>
>>>>> And in 19.11 additionally 'eth_dev_pci_specific_init' also seems has same problem.
>>> 
>>> Yes, as I understand RTE_ETH_DEV_CLOSE_REMOVE,
>>> RTE_ETH_DEV_BONDED_SLAVE, RTE_ETH_DEV_REPRESENTOR and
>>> RTE_ETH_DEV_NOLIVE_MAC_ADDR may be lost because of
>>> reinit (if not restored in other branches). Bad anyway.
>>> 
>>>>>> Our driver is ixgbe, i think this problem has a little relationship with driver, Secondary process
>>>>>> enters "rte_eth_copy_pci_info" by "rte_eth_dev_pci_allocate".And I agree your opinion, the helper
>>>>>> function should simple on what it does.I have two ways to fix this problem, one is add an if-statement
>>>>>>
>>>>>> in "rte_eth_dev_pci_allocate" function to forbid secondary process enters "rte_eth_copy_pci_info" function,
>>>>>> another way is add an if-statement in "rte_eth_copy_pci_info" function to forbid secondary process change
>>>>>> shared memory.And First way need to ensure the "rte_eth_copy_pci_info" function won't be called anywhere else.
>>>>>> I think the second way is simple and lower risk.
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes these are the two options.
>>>>>
>>>>> I agree adding check in the 'rte_eth_copy_pci_info' covers all cases and safer.
>>>>> BUT my concern was adding decision making to simple/leaf function and make it
>>>>> harder to debug/use, instead of giving what primary/secondary process should
>>>>> call decision in higher level.
>>>>>
>>>>> But I just recognized that some PMDs are calling 'rte_eth_copy_pci_info' on
>>>>> secondary process, like mlx4 or szedata2, and most probably this is not their
>>>>> intention.
>>>>> And 'eth_dev->intr_handle' set in 'rte_eth_copy_pci_info', not calling this
>>>>> function may have side affect of 'eth_dev->intr_handle' not set in secondary.
>>>>>
>>>>> With above considerations I am OK to your proposal to cover all cases, Thomas,
>>>>> Andrew, any concern?
>>> 
>>> I would put if condition in rte_eth_copy_pci_info().
>>> It is the function which writes shared space from
>>> secondary process when it should not be done and it
>>> should be fixed there.
>>
>>OK
>>
>>> 
>>>> Do you mean drivers need to be fixed?
>>> 
>>> I'm not sure that I fully understand it. Since copy function
>>> cares about intr_handle copying I'm afraid that it is not
>>> 100% correct to skip it in secondary process completely as
>>> many drivers do right now. Basically it makes eth_dev structure
>>> in secondary process inconsistent. However, it looks like
>>> most of these drivers simply obtain handle from pci_dev
>>> directly and it explains why they are not affected.
>>> There are exceptions which are potentially bugs, e.g.
>>> drivers/net/ice/ice_ethdev.c: ice_interrupt_handler at the end.
>>> 
>>> I think that it would be better if intr_handle is always
>>> correct in eth_dev (both primary and secondary cases) and
>>> drivers use it instead of the same from pci_dev.
>>> 
>>
>>OK
>>
>>So this suggest going on with Fang's patch. I only requested an additional note
>>in function comment related to this secondary check.
> 
>