Olivier Matz <olivier.m...@6wind.com> 于2022年11月22日周二 23:25写道:
>
> Hi,
>
> On Tue, Nov 15, 2022 at 08:35:02PM +0800, Fengnan Chang wrote:
> > rte_mempool_create put tailq entry into rte_mempool_tailq list before
> > populate, and pool_data set when populate. So in multi process, if
> > process A create mempool, and process B can get mempool through
> > rte_mempool_lookup before pool_data set, if B call rte_mempool_avail_count,
> > it will cause segment fault.
> >
> > Fix this by put tailq entry into rte_mempool_tailq after populate.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Fengnan Chang <changfeng...@bytedance.com>
> > ---
> >  lib/mempool/rte_mempool.c | 43 ++++++++++++++++++++++-----------------
> >  1 file changed, 24 insertions(+), 19 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/lib/mempool/rte_mempool.c b/lib/mempool/rte_mempool.c
> > index 4c78071a34..b3a6572fc8 100644
> > --- a/lib/mempool/rte_mempool.c
> > +++ b/lib/mempool/rte_mempool.c
> > @@ -155,6 +155,27 @@ get_min_page_size(int socket_id)
> >       return wa.min == SIZE_MAX ? (size_t) rte_mem_page_size() : wa.min;
> >  }
> >
> > +static int
> > +add_mempool_to_list(struct rte_mempool *mp)
> > +{
> > +     struct rte_mempool_list *mempool_list;
> > +     struct rte_tailq_entry *te = NULL;
> > +
> > +     /* try to allocate tailq entry */
> > +     te = rte_zmalloc("MEMPOOL_TAILQ_ENTRY", sizeof(*te), 0);
> > +     if (te == NULL) {
> > +             RTE_LOG(ERR, MEMPOOL, "Cannot allocate tailq entry!\n");
> > +             return -ENOMEM;
> > +     }
> > +
> > +     te->data = mp;
> > +     mempool_list = RTE_TAILQ_CAST(rte_mempool_tailq.head, 
> > rte_mempool_list);
> > +     rte_mcfg_tailq_write_lock();
> > +     TAILQ_INSERT_TAIL(mempool_list, te, next);
> > +     rte_mcfg_tailq_write_unlock();
> > +
> > +     return 0;
> > +}
> >
> >  static void
> >  mempool_add_elem(struct rte_mempool *mp, __rte_unused void *opaque,
> > @@ -304,6 +325,9 @@ mempool_ops_alloc_once(struct rte_mempool *mp)
> >               if (ret != 0)
> >                       return ret;
> >               mp->flags |= RTE_MEMPOOL_F_POOL_CREATED;
> > +             ret = add_mempool_to_list(mp);
> > +             if (ret != 0)
> > +                     return ret;
>
> One issue here is that if the rte_zmalloc("MEMPOOL_TAILQ_ENTRY") fails,
> the function will fail, but rte_mempool_ops_alloc() may already be
> successful.
>
> I agree it's theorical, because an allocation failure would cause more
> issues at the end. But, to be rigorous, I think we should do something
> like this instead (not tested, just for the idea):
>
>         static int
>         mempool_ops_alloc_once(struct rte_mempool *mp)
>         {
>                 struct rte_mempool_list *mempool_list;
>                 struct rte_tailq_entry *te = NULL;
>                 int ret;
>
>                 /* only create the driver ops and add in tailq in if not 
> already done */
>                 if ((mp->flags & RTE_MEMPOOL_F_POOL_CREATED))
>                         return 0;
>
>                 te = rte_zmalloc("MEMPOOL_TAILQ_ENTRY", sizeof(*te), 0);
>                 if (te == NULL) {
>                         RTE_LOG(ERR, MEMPOOL, "Cannot allocate tailq 
> entry!\n");
>                         ret = -rte_errno;
>                         goto fail;
>                 }
>                 te->data = mp;
>                 mempool_list = RTE_TAILQ_CAST(rte_mempool_tailq.head, 
> rte_mempool_list);
>
>                 ret = rte_mempool_ops_alloc(mp);
>                 if (ret != 0)
>                         goto fail;
>
>                 mp->flags |= RTE_MEMPOOL_F_POOL_CREATED;
>                 rte_mcfg_tailq_write_lock();
>                 TAILQ_INSERT_TAIL(mempool_list, te, next);
>                 rte_mcfg_tailq_write_unlock();
>
>                 return 0;
>
>         fail:
>                 rte_free(te);
>                 return ret;
>         }
>
>
> Thinking a bit more about the problem itself: the segfault that you
> describe could also happen in a primary, without multi-process:
> - create an empty mempool
> - call rte_mempool_avail_count() before it is populated
>
> This simply means that an empty mempool is not ready for use, until
> rte_mempool_set_ops_byname() or rte_mempool_populate*() is called. This
> is something that we should document above the declaration of
> rte_mempool_create_empty(). We could also say there that the mempool
> will become visible to the secondary processes as soon as the driver ops
> are set.
>
> However I still believe that a better synchronization point is required
> in the application. After all, the presence in the TAILQ does not give
> any hint on the status of the object. Can we imagine a case where a
> mempool is created empty in a primary, and populated in a secondary? If
> such use-case exist, we may not want to take this patch.

Maybe there is a case like you said, do you think adding check mempool flags in
rte_mempool_avail_count is acceptable ?
If RTE_MEMPOOL_F_POOL_CREATED not set, just return 0.

>
> >       }
> >       return 0;
> >  }
> > @@ -798,9 +822,7 @@ rte_mempool_create_empty(const char *name, unsigned n, 
> > unsigned elt_size,
> >       int socket_id, unsigned flags)
> >  {
> >       char mz_name[RTE_MEMZONE_NAMESIZE];
> > -     struct rte_mempool_list *mempool_list;
> >       struct rte_mempool *mp = NULL;
> > -     struct rte_tailq_entry *te = NULL;
> >       const struct rte_memzone *mz = NULL;
> >       size_t mempool_size;
> >       unsigned int mz_flags = RTE_MEMZONE_1GB|RTE_MEMZONE_SIZE_HINT_ONLY;
> > @@ -820,8 +842,6 @@ rte_mempool_create_empty(const char *name, unsigned n, 
> > unsigned elt_size,
> >                         RTE_CACHE_LINE_MASK) != 0);
> >  #endif
> >
> > -     mempool_list = RTE_TAILQ_CAST(rte_mempool_tailq.head, 
> > rte_mempool_list);
> > -
> >       /* asked for zero items */
> >       if (n == 0) {
> >               rte_errno = EINVAL;
> > @@ -866,14 +886,6 @@ rte_mempool_create_empty(const char *name, unsigned n, 
> > unsigned elt_size,
> >       private_data_size = (private_data_size +
> >                            RTE_MEMPOOL_ALIGN_MASK) & 
> > (~RTE_MEMPOOL_ALIGN_MASK);
> >
> > -
> > -     /* try to allocate tailq entry */
> > -     te = rte_zmalloc("MEMPOOL_TAILQ_ENTRY", sizeof(*te), 0);
> > -     if (te == NULL) {
> > -             RTE_LOG(ERR, MEMPOOL, "Cannot allocate tailq entry!\n");
> > -             goto exit_unlock;
> > -     }
> > -
> >       mempool_size = RTE_MEMPOOL_HEADER_SIZE(mp, cache_size);
> >       mempool_size += private_data_size;
> >       mempool_size = RTE_ALIGN_CEIL(mempool_size, RTE_MEMPOOL_ALIGN);
> > @@ -923,20 +935,13 @@ rte_mempool_create_empty(const char *name, unsigned 
> > n, unsigned elt_size,
> >                                          cache_size);
> >       }
> >
> > -     te->data = mp;
> > -
> > -     rte_mcfg_tailq_write_lock();
> > -     TAILQ_INSERT_TAIL(mempool_list, te, next);
> > -     rte_mcfg_tailq_write_unlock();
> >       rte_mcfg_mempool_write_unlock();
> > -
> >       rte_mempool_trace_create_empty(name, n, elt_size, cache_size,
> >               private_data_size, flags, mp);
> >       return mp;
> >
> >  exit_unlock:
> >       rte_mcfg_mempool_write_unlock();
> > -     rte_free(te);
> >       rte_mempool_free(mp);
> >       return NULL;
> >  }
> > --
> > 2.37.0 (Apple Git-136)
> >

Reply via email to