From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from dpdk.org (dpdk.org [92.243.14.124]) by inbox.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D8AD0A0471 for ; Tue, 13 Aug 2019 05:29:19 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [92.243.14.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3FACB1B952; Tue, 13 Aug 2019 05:29:19 +0200 (CEST) Received: from mail-pg1-f194.google.com (mail-pg1-f194.google.com [209.85.215.194]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3C8EE5681 for ; Tue, 13 Aug 2019 05:29:17 +0200 (CEST) Received: by mail-pg1-f194.google.com with SMTP id n190so9693792pgn.0 for ; Mon, 12 Aug 2019 20:29:17 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=networkplumber-org.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=QyzopBboHQ3T/1JiGx4AZrNuYuznNOkpv7ro6+qyBxs=; b=pznEnDDyeYjhaoCfVChUAGxM+GiTKiQE1rophmPdv+WmZhsvtRul4CIIJUOsfKB9Bu Zp18wQ1eypgISLUxUj3x6K9U4Fkp1rDjhqbigbXn59ypshJzXESveYZTfWT3LFESg9za 3OZFl6CqtPFClc34auvHkTmge2lvj9Wbl7Lovm0Op8urhx//vYtxidd3xcYwbPkrluoU oG8ZXCEwPYLAgjCtLmYUHOtpmsvtgET0l5hFDPtr19qF0yMDfkiAz5SLtwqtSgixxaS+ f5rrWr5RU5bptuWT47YDJBrVG69mdX5cl7SPsfk3Vr2LpV6b4+TRJt2IfCUv6PhlMWAq k/AQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:in-reply-to :references:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=QyzopBboHQ3T/1JiGx4AZrNuYuznNOkpv7ro6+qyBxs=; b=Qb4UcQyYxDzT9dvZvxP/u0frsmHrxNkf353rxUUQfrqJLuXUULxdHveD+ko66O/Zux ZB/gR150K9Kbc0maaHBwzpKRVH8RzIVWUPVgoq0NYM3IGr/DMkHVl7ds46aCsgbQAFu7 Wn+EXl3VfeqqlqQtvoSUpc0xTl5zc1YOOrml1i2qqZZQS/7pwvsafIsXwoMlYP2BEM+o UYVujcneJyn5plGMXnFn+PD1QF+VKddFF1lragt1UWYnjvOyoGPQ5yPB/1MM79D8EIfp diEoIUUS78gf0mYHtTMyo78LBTZaouvVdTiKCOOAARF2gCEG4P0aPbgO6bw4w16oTBQj qZhQ== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAV1L2JDYQ7gWOHAwI+x7qBJY9C+mP8Fs7npa7/iDGfZJjKvll7O xbxNAjKYeqA3deyKnYe+mIoUbg1m/3w= X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqxNvyPqOUGp8vAHkpOuMAyKum2tKDLWGUCbfxXmaoJYkDhBBf0SzjopZ0/JlHf+iXqs++Qaww== X-Received: by 2002:aa7:8144:: with SMTP id d4mr2312748pfn.6.1565666956340; Mon, 12 Aug 2019 20:29:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.lan (204-195-22-127.wavecable.com. [204.195.22.127]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id a6sm109737704pfa.162.2019.08.12.20.29.16 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=AEAD-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256/256); Mon, 12 Aug 2019 20:29:16 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2019 20:29:09 -0700 From: Stephen Hemminger To: Abhijeet Baruah Cc: users@dpdk.org Message-ID: <20190812202909.00c1eba7@hermes.lan> In-Reply-To: References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [dpdk-users] IP Reassembly with more 4 packets crash X-BeenThere: users@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: DPDK usage discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: users-bounces@dpdk.org Sender: "users" On Tue, 13 Aug 2019 08:37:09 +0530 Abhijeet Baruah wrote: > Hi, > > I have looked at previous mails on this mailing list and also elsewhere on > Google and could not find any information related to this. > > Whenever I have to reassemble a valid IP packet with more than 4 fragments, > I see a crash. Stack trace below. I assume the number 4 comes > from RTE_LIBRTE_IP_FRAG_MAX_FRAG. > > (gdb) bt > #0 ip_frag_lookup (tbl=tbl@entry=0x7fff7a32ce80, key=key@entry=0x7ffff6eeee10, > tms=tms@entry=2602613353715115, free=free@entry=0x7ffff6eeedb8, > stale=stale@entry=0x7ffff6eeedc0) at > /usr/src/debug/dpdk-17.11.2-6.fc30.x86_64/lib/librte_ip_frag/ip_frag_internal.c:379 > #1 0x00007ffff7c021f6 in ip_frag_find (tbl=tbl@entry=0x7fff7a32ce80, > dr=dr@entry=0x7fff7a32c900, key=key@entry=0x7ffff6eeee10, > tms=2602613353715115) > at > /usr/src/debug/dpdk-17.11.2-6.fc30.x86_64/lib/librte_ip_frag/ip_frag_internal.c:286 > #2 0x00007ffff7c00280 in rte_ipv4_frag_reassemble_packet > (tbl=0x7fff7a32ce80, dr=0x7fff7a32c900, mb=0x7fff8b71b480, tms= out>, > ip_hdr=) at > /usr/src/debug/dpdk-17.11.2-6.fc30.x86_64/lib/librte_ip_frag/rte_ipv4_reassembly.c:160 > > (gdb) f 0 > #0 ip_frag_lookup (tbl=tbl@entry=0x7fff7a32ce80, key=key@entry=0x7ffff6eeee10, > tms=tms@entry=2602613353715115, free=free@entry=0x7ffff6eeedb8, > stale=stale@entry=0x7ffff6eeedc0) at > /usr/src/debug/dpdk-17.11.2-6.fc30.x86_64/lib/librte_ip_frag/ip_frag_internal.c:379 > 379 if (ip_frag_key_cmp(key, &p1[i].key) == 0) > > (gdb) f 1 > #1 0x00007ffff7c021f6 in ip_frag_find (tbl=tbl@entry=0x7fff7a32ce80, > dr=dr@entry=0x7fff7a32c900, key=key@entry=0x7ffff6eeee10, > tms=2602613353715115) > at > /usr/src/debug/dpdk-17.11.2-6.fc30.x86_64/lib/librte_ip_frag/ip_frag_internal.c:286 > 286 if ((pkt = ip_frag_lookup(tbl, key, tms, &free, &stale)) == NULL) { > > (gdb) f 2 > #2 0x00007ffff7c00280 in rte_ipv4_frag_reassemble_packet > (tbl=0x7fff7a32ce80, dr=0x7fff7a32c900, mb=0x7fff8b71b480, tms= out>, > ip_hdr=) at > /usr/src/debug/dpdk-17.11.2-6.fc30.x86_64/lib/librte_ip_frag/rte_ipv4_reassembly.c:160 > 160 if ((fp = ip_frag_find(tbl, dr, &key, tms)) == NULL) { > > Is this a known issue? Are there any workaround? > > Regards, > Abhijeet Please try and reproduce with latest DPDK 19.08.