DPDK usage discussions
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Cliff Burdick <shaklee3@gmail.com>
To: Alex Kiselev <alex@therouter.net>
Cc: Stephen Hemminger <stephen@networkplumber.org>, users <users@dpdk.org>
Subject: Re: [dpdk-users] segmention fault while accessing mbuf
Date: Sun, 7 Jun 2020 08:21:10 -0700
Message-ID: <CA+Gp1nYRVViyKFg_7GEp_coq5irdZ1a+J4LqwA4itVcQSRiVZA@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <5e91c3aa80e354241b03b908f5529d6b@therouter.net>

The mbuf pool said be configured to be the size of the largest packet you
expect to receive. If you're getting packets longer than that, I would
expect you to see problems. Same goes for transmitting; I believe it will
just read past the end of the mbuf data.



On Sun, Jun 7, 2020, 06:36 Alex Kiselev <alex@therouter.net> wrote:

> On 2020-06-07 15:16, Cliff Burdick wrote:
> > That shouldn't matter. The mbuf size is allocated when you create the
> > mempool, and data_len/pkt_len are just to specify the size of the
> > total packet and each segment. The underlying storage size is still
> > the same.
>
> It does matter. I've done some tests and after
> sending a few mbufs with data_len/pkt_len bigger than the size
> of mbuf's underlying buffer the app stops sending/receiving packets.
> The PMD apparently goes beyong the mbuf's buffer, that's why
> I sill think that my question about the impact of using incorrect
> data_len/pkt is valid.
>
> >
> > Have you checked to see if it's potentially a hugepage issue?
>
> Please, explain.
>
> The app had been working two monghts before the crush
> and the load was 3-4 gbit/s, so no, I don't think that
> something is wrong with hugepages on that machine.
>
>
> >
> > On Sun, Jun 7, 2020, 02:59 Alex Kiselev <alex@therouter.net> wrote:
> >
> >> On 2020-06-07 04:41, Cliff Burdick wrote:
> >>> I can't tell from your code, but you assigned nb_rx to the number
> >> of
> >>> packets received, but then used vec_size, which might be larger.
> >> Does
> >>> this happen if you use nb_rx in your loops?
> >>
> >> No, this doesn't happen.
> >> I just skip the part of the code that translates nb_rx to vec_size,
> >> since that code is double checked.
> >>
> >> My actual question now is about possible impact of using
> >> incorrect values of mbuf's pkt_len and data_len fields.
> >>
> >>>
> >>> On Sat, Jun 6, 2020 at 5:59 AM Alex Kiselev <alex@therouter.net>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>> 1 июня 2020 г., в 19:17, Stephen Hemminger
> >>>> <stephen@networkplumber.org> написал(а):
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On Mon, 01 Jun 2020 15:24:25 +0200
> >>>>> Alex Kiselev <alex@therouter.net> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> Hello,
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> I've got a segmentation fault error in my data plane path.
> >>>>>> I am pretty sure the code where the segfault happened is ok,
> >>>>>> so my guess is that I somehow received a corrupted mbuf.
> >>>>>> How could I troubleshoot this? Is there any way?
> >>>>>> Is it possible that other threads of the application
> >>>>>> corrupted that mbuf?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> I would really appriciate any advice.
> >>>>>> Thanks.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> DPDK 18.11.3
> >>>>>> NIC: 82599ES
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Code:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> nb_rx = rte_eth_rx_burst(port_id, queue_id, pkts_burst,
> >>>>>> MAX_PKT_BURST);
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> ...
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> for (i=0; i < vec_size; i++) {
> >>>>>> rte_prefetch0(rte_pktmbuf_mtod(m_v[i], void *));
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> for (i=0; i < vec_size; i++) {
> >>>>>> m = m_v[i];
> >>>>>> eth_hdr = rte_pktmbuf_mtod(m, struct ether_hdr *);
> >>>>>> eth_type = rte_be_to_cpu_16(eth_hdr->ether_type);
> >>>> <---
> >>>>>> Segmentation fault
> >>>>>> ...
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> #0  rte_arch_bswap16 (_x=<error reading variable: Cannot access
> >>>> memory
> >>>>>> at address 0x4d80000000053010>)
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Build with as many of the debug options turned on in the DPDK
> >>>> config,
> >>>>> and build with EXTRA_CFLAGS of -g.
> >>>>
> >>>> Could using an incorrect (a very big one) value of mbuf pkt_len
> >> and
> >>>> data_len while transmitting cause mbuf corruption and following
> >>>> segmentation fault on rx?
>

  reply	other threads:[~2020-06-07 15:21 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2020-06-01 13:24 Alex Kiselev
2020-06-01 16:17 ` Stephen Hemminger
2020-06-02 18:46   ` Alex Kiselev
2020-06-06 12:59   ` Alex Kiselev
2020-06-07  2:41     ` Cliff Burdick
2020-06-07  9:59       ` Alex Kiselev
2020-06-07 13:16         ` Cliff Burdick
2020-06-07 13:36           ` Alex Kiselev
2020-06-07 15:21             ` Cliff Burdick [this message]
2020-06-07 17:11               ` Alex Kiselev
2020-06-07 18:11                 ` Cliff Burdick
2020-06-07 22:56                   ` Alex Kiselev

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=CA+Gp1nYRVViyKFg_7GEp_coq5irdZ1a+J4LqwA4itVcQSRiVZA@mail.gmail.com \
    --to=shaklee3@gmail.com \
    --cc=alex@therouter.net \
    --cc=stephen@networkplumber.org \
    --cc=users@dpdk.org \
    /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

DPDK usage discussions

This inbox may be cloned and mirrored by anyone:

	git clone --mirror https://inbox.dpdk.org/users/0 users/git/0.git

	# If you have public-inbox 1.1+ installed, you may
	# initialize and index your mirror using the following commands:
	public-inbox-init -V2 users users/ https://inbox.dpdk.org/users \
		users@dpdk.org
	public-inbox-index users

Example config snippet for mirrors.
Newsgroup available over NNTP:
	nntp://inbox.dpdk.org/inbox.dpdk.users


AGPL code for this site: git clone https://public-inbox.org/public-inbox.git