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 6D5ED454A7 for ; Wed, 19 Jun 2024 10:46:11 +0200 (CEST) Received: from mails.dpdk.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 439B34026C; Wed, 19 Jun 2024 10:46:11 +0200 (CEST) Received: from mail-pg1-f179.google.com (mail-pg1-f179.google.com [209.85.215.179]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BCDEB4021D for ; Wed, 19 Jun 2024 10:46:09 +0200 (CEST) Received: by mail-pg1-f179.google.com with SMTP id 41be03b00d2f7-6e5fd488d9fso4689852a12.3 for ; Wed, 19 Jun 2024 01:46:09 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20230601; t=1718786769; x=1719391569; darn=dpdk.org; h=content-transfer-encoding:cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from :in-reply-to:references:mime-version:from:to:cc:subject:date :message-id:reply-to; bh=savkaOkc/mPEEzdAehDQkqHA2Ls/qXweCZ3KiDqjPqw=; b=GTmIdHYtSWGaTQbchMK8sW3Z26rjeiG12hmJfEDzoNJ0zBAZhdhx/3tEnYUvhM8y3C nQKm/V/c8fP3iDGniFu5yK9RfmFLoN/LQ3hFzeebfwDATdopgCfKbv3db2bTxCiQ16xe nh+poQydz5z7F/9zEcTKVfZCDkrRXvrB6ZOgXdeUujpeAIPQOrfLdNwWHZkdZNfhfNCL IvTiZNhgaE6QjnKnSpNFEB/eNodhvrCJ9xh80d08MYVjTC9/R/riWh/oDJbuIXlDRUjj ATFHSoD1r+CtcK3OpXD+tOA0/t2aWV1wezibR2sT2XsAnGN8N3V8uvY9xUEPXCVSeN0D 8q8g== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1718786769; x=1719391569; h=content-transfer-encoding:cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from :in-reply-to:references:mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc :subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=savkaOkc/mPEEzdAehDQkqHA2Ls/qXweCZ3KiDqjPqw=; b=hfc7jebU9Bh45pLwWJsyOz5DaeHwz0yFaLWPsdLlJaIH7EIJ7Wiox6lF5ZXHYWri0B 0bX339qQS9FiPs6TPDypNZRNHf0cl+0LPY2bcoPeFAv3A3eTJdtgrs47eDy6tgFAqfcs O/kiHBG/IH26w99dNqGQLaMONwxTDJN2tRSOaoRK5DWEFXqjv+C2hSYH7HO2El0sih4u +hCIgDFD5QRJxeG9Y1kFaoc7Pai4WRK2IGOuH1ckKiIsfAPbRsZemmKfrJfKMmK8Yxeb aVys64UiZpJatBe7nlUE368tr/dW0JUzK9DD3AlxlPQFtN3MVMoRympyrW8VsoLhfET9 cJLA== X-Forwarded-Encrypted: i=1; AJvYcCW5XkznbUr8kqJDgXMPPSJfgx68hNvOhDz0XjM5simAACDUQpj26FSld+NP42lrv3wYbr+0oz/1nayuI8tzLA== X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YwXMdUtqdMrcdPYdlaNWrKe6qIULALi3O5uBjRlYC3tu/aKPq4L H4q9X9EoHbREZlJMyFFP9Cm6LCOKP8kGLFhoncxcVHoB5ybraXa14YwsQ0mu23/+vR4yWnE2pDz BkbHTHA3s89/edM4Z0XFy7eNPlUc= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IEGvfLsy7yslsqQ0dmzDKYfzEtv3tiSbPc9FAP4r85xtgLgPTJsTqV1yKTXrUv2rxni7Oe3TXuvmihx7yjmfQ8= X-Received: by 2002:a17:90a:b38b:b0:2c4:e2cd:9216 with SMTP id 98e67ed59e1d1-2c7b5afb4ffmr2019669a91.16.1718786768699; Wed, 19 Jun 2024 01:46:08 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20240617083049.412242fb@hermes.local> <20240617144013.0bbcece1@hermes.local> In-Reply-To: From: Isaac Boukris Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2024 11:45:57 +0300 Message-ID: Subject: Re: dumpcap: weird failure with six IPv6 hosts in the filter To: Konstantin Ananyev Cc: Stephen Hemminger , users@dpdk.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-BeenThere: users@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: DPDK usage discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: users-bounces@dpdk.org Hi Konstantin, On Wed, Jun 19, 2024 at 2:06=E2=80=AFAM Konstantin Ananyev wrote: > > 17.06.2024 22:40, Stephen Hemminger =D0=BF=D0=B8=D1=88=D0=B5=D1=82: > > On Mon, 17 Jun 2024 23:43:19 +0300 > > Isaac Boukris wrote: > > > >> On Mon, Jun 17, 2024 at 10:37=E2=80=AFPM Isaac Boukris wrote: > >>> > >>>> Just a quick update that I still see the issue in my env with the > >>>> master branch (24.07.0-rc0), I'm now testing by adding the filter to > >>>> 'sample_filters' in test_bpf.c and running: > >>>> time sudo build/app/dpdk-test bpf_convert_autotest > >>>> > >>>> With 5 hosts it takes less than 2 secs, with 6 it takes about 25 sec= s, > >>>> i'll try to strace it maybe. > >>> > >>> strace was useless, no syscalls for ~18 secs, not sure how to debug i= t > >>> further, valgrind / callgrind don't work on dpdk.. > >>> > >>> It doesn't seem to be about the size though, I was able to produce > >>> larger bpf code with ipv4 addresses and it worked fine too. > >> > >> Debugged a bit further with gdb, it looks like it is stuck in a while > >> loop in lib/bpf/bpf_validate.c:evaluate(), there is a comment saying > >> "make sure we evaluate each node only once" but it seem to go back and > >> forth on the same idx's afaict. > > > > No idea, only original author understands the verifier. > > Having our own unique verifier may not be a good idea. > > There some other userspace BPF projects, seems like a good place for > > convergence. > > > > > > https://lpc.events/event/17/contributions/1639/attachments/1280/2585/us= erspace-ebpf-bpftime-lpc.pdf > > hi Isaac, > please create a bug report in DPDK bugzilla. > Ideally with a clear and simple way to reproduce > the bug you are facing in the description. > I'll try to have a look when I'll have some free time. > Thanks > Konstantin Done: https://bugs.dpdk.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3D1465 Thanks a lot!