> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yi...@amd.com>
> Sent: Saturday, March 4, 2023 1:19 AM
> To: Konstantin Ananyev <konstantin.v.anan...@yandex.ru>; dev@dpdk.org;
> fengchengwen
> <fengcheng...@huawei.com>; Konstantin Ananyev
> <konstantin.anan...@huawei.com>; Honnappa
> Nagarahalli <honnappa.nagaraha...@arm.com>; Stephen Hemminger
> <step...@networkplumber.org>;
> Ruifeng Wang <ruifeng.w...@arm.com>; Ajit Khaparde
> (ajit.khapa...@broadcom.com)
> <ajit.khapa...@broadcom.com>
> Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] ethdev: fix race condition in fast-path ops setup
>
> On 2/26/2023 5:22 PM, Konstantin Ananyev wrote:
> >
> >>>>>>>>>>> If ethdev enqueue or dequeue function is called during
> >>>>>>>>>>> eth_dev_fp_ops_setup(), it may get pre-empted after setting
> >>>>>>>>>>> the function pointers, but before setting the pointer to port
> >>>>>>>>>>> data.
> >>>>>>>>>>> In this case the newly registered enqueue/dequeue function
> >>>>>>>>>>> will use dummy port data and end up in seg fault.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> This patch moves the updation of each data pointers before
> >>>>>>>>>>> updating corresponding function pointers.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Fixes: c87d435a4d79 ("ethdev: copy fast-path API into
> >>>>>>>>>>> separate
> >>>>>>>>>>> structure")
> >>>>>>>>>>> Cc: sta...@dpdk.org
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Why is something calling enqueue/dequeue when device is not
> >>>>>>>> fully
> >>>>>> started.
> >>>>>>>> A correctly written application would not call rx/tx burst
> >>>>>>>> until after ethdev start had finished.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Please refer the eb0d471a894 (ethdev: add proactive error
> >>>>>>> handling mode), when driver recover itself, the application may
> >>>>>>> still invoke
> >>>>>> enqueue/dequeue API.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Right now DPDK ethdev layer *does not* provide synchronization
> >>>>>> mechanisms between data-path and control-path functions.
> >>>>>> That was a deliberate deisgn choice. If we want to change that
> >>>>>> rule, then I suppose we need a community consensus for it.
> >>>>>> I think that if the driver wants to provide some sort of error
> >>>>>> recovery procedure, then it has to provide some synchronization
> >>>>>> mechanism inside it between data-path and control-path functions.
> >>>>>> Actually looking at eb0d471a894 (ethdev: add proactive error
> >>>>>> handling mode), and following patches I wonder how it creeped in?
> >>>>>> It seems we just introduced a loophole for race condition with
> >>>>>> this approach...
> >>>>
> >>>> Could you try to describe the specific scenario of loophole ?
> >>>
> >>> Ok, as I understand the existing mechanism:
> >>>
> >>> When PMD wants to start a recovery it has to:
> >>> - invoke
> >>> rte_eth_dev_callback_process(RTE_ETH_EVENT_ERR_RECOVERING);
> >>> That supposed to call user provided callback. After callback is
> >>> finished PMD assumes
> >>> that user is aware that recovery is about to start and should
> >>> make some precautions.
> >>> - when recovery is finished it invokes another callback:
> >>> RTE_ETH_EVENT_RECOVERY_(SUCCESS/FAILED). After that user either
> >>> can continue to
> >>> use port or have to treat is as faulty.
> >>>
> >>> The idea is ok in principle, but there is a problem.
> >>>
> >>> lib/ethdev/rte_ethdev.h:
> >>> /** Port recovering from a hardware or firmware error.
> >>> * If PMD supports proactive error recovery,
> >>> * it should trigger this event to notify application
> >>> * that it detected an error and the recovery is being started.
> >>>
> >>> <<< !!!!!
> >>> * Upon receiving the event, the application should not
> >>> invoke any control path API
> >>> * (such as rte_eth_dev_configure/rte_eth_dev_stop...)
> >>> until receiving
> >>> * RTE_ETH_EVENT_RECOVERY_SUCCESS or
> >>> RTE_ETH_EVENT_RECOVERY_FAILED event.
> >>> * The PMD will set the data path pointers to dummy
> >>> functions,
> >>> * and re-set the data path pointers to non-dummy functions
> >>> * before reporting RTE_ETH_EVENT_RECOVERY_SUCCESS event.
> >>> <<< !!!!!
> >>>
> >>> That part is just wrong I believe.
> >>> It should be:
> >>> Upon receiving the event, the application should not invoke any
> >>> *both control and data-path* API until receiving
> >>> RTE_ETH_EVENT_RECOVERY_SUCCESS or RTE_ETH_EVENT_RECOVERY_FAILED
> >>> event.
> >>> Resetting data path pointers to dummy functions by PMD *before*
> >>> invoking rte_eth_dev_callback_process(RTE_ETH_EVENT_ERR_RECOVERING);
> >>> introduces a race-condition with data-path threads, as such thread
> >>> could already be inside RX/TX function or can already read RX/TX
> >>> function/data pointers and be about to use them.
> >>
> >> Current practices: the PMDs already add some delay after set Rx/Tx
> >> callback to dummy, and plus the DPDK worker thread is busypolling,
> >> the probability of occurence in reality is zero. But in theoretically
> >> exist the above race-condition.
> >
> >
> > Adding delay might make a problem a bit less reproducible, but it
> > doesn't fix it.
> > The bug is still there.
> >
> >
> >>
> >>> And right now rte_ethdev layer doesn't provide any mechanism to
> >>> check it or wait when they'll finish, etc.
> >>
> >> Yes
> >>
> >>>
> >>> So, probably the simplest way to fix it with existing DPDK design:
> >>> - user level callback RTE_ETH_EVENT_ERR_RECOVERING should return
> >>> only after it ensures that *all*
> >>> application threads (and processes) stopped using either control
> >>> or data-path functions for that port
> >>
> >> Agree
> >>
> >>> (yes it means that application that wants to use this feature has
> >>> to provide its own synchronization mechanism
> >>> around data-path functions (RX/TX) that it is going to use).
> >>> - after that PMD is safe to reset rte_eth_fp_ops[] values to dummy ones.
> >>>
> >>> And message to all PMD developers:
> >>> *please stop updating rte_eth_fp_ops[] on your own*.
> >>> That's a bad practice and it is not supposed to do things that way.
> >>> There is a special API provided for these purposes:
> >>> eth_dev_fp_ops_reset(), eth_dev_fp_ops_setup(), so use it.
> >>
> >> This two function is in private.h, so it should be expose to public
> >> header file.
> >
> > You mean we need to move these functions declarations into ethdev_driver.h?
> > If so, then yes, I think we probably do.
> >
> >
>
>
> What about making slightly different version available to drivers, which only
> updates
> function pointers, but not 'fpo->rxq' / 'fpo->txq'.
>
> This way driver can switch to between dummy and real burst function without
> worrying Rx/Tx
> queue validity.
>
> @Chengwen, @Ruifeng, can this solve the issue for relaxed memory ordering
> systems?
Yes, updating only function pointers removes the synchronization requirement
between function
pointer and qdata.
>
>
>
> >>>
> >>> BTW, I don't see any implementation for
> >>> RTE_ETH_EVENT_ERR_RECOVERING within either testpmd or any other
> >>> example apps.
> >>> Am I missing something?
> >>
> >> Currently it just promote the event.
> >
> >
> > Ok, can I suggest then to add a proper usage for into in testpmd?
> > It looks really strange that we add new feature into ethdev (and 2
> > PMDs), but didn't provide any way for users to test it.
> >
> >>
> >>> If not, then probably it could be a good starting point - let's
> >>> incorporate it inside testpmd (new forwarding engine probably) so
> >>> everyone can test/try it.
> >>>
> >>> * It means that the application cannot send or receive any
> >>> packets
> >>> * during this period.
> >>> * @note Before the PMD reports the recovery result,
> >>> * the PMD may report the RTE_ETH_EVENT_ERR_RECOVERING
> >>> event again,
> >>> * because a larger error may occur during the recovery.
> >>> */
> >>> RTE_ETH_EVENT_ERR_RECOVERING,
> >>>
> >>>>>> It probably needs to be either deprecated or reworked.
> >>>>> Looking at the commit, it does not say anything about the data
> >>>>> plane functions which probably means, the error recovery is
> >>>> happening within the data plane thread. What happens to other data
> >>>> plane threads that are polling the same port on which the error
> >>>> recovery is happening?
> >>>>
> >>>> The commit log says: "the PMD sets the data path pointers to dummy
> >>>> functions".
> >>>>
> >>>> So the data plane threads will receive non-packet and send zero
> >>>> with port which in error recovery.
> >>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Also, the commit log says that while the error recovery is under
> >>>>> progress, the application should not call any control plane APIs.
> >>>>> Does
> >>>> that mean, the application has to check for error condition every
> >>>> time it calls a control plane API?
> >>>>
> >>>> If application has not register event
> >>>> (RTE_ETH_EVENT_ERR_RECOVERING) callback, it could calls control
> >>>> plane API, but it will return failed.
> >>>> If application has register above callback, it can wait for
> >>>> recovery result, or direct call without wait but this will return failed.
> >>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> The commit message also says that "PMD makes sure the control path
> >>>>> operations failed with retcode -EBUSY". It does not say how it
> >>>> does this. But, any communication from the PMD thread to control
> >>>> plane thread may introduce race conditions if not done correctly.
> >>>>
> >>>> First there are no PMD thread, do you mean eal-intr-thread ?
> >>>>
> >>>> As for this question, you can see PMDs which already implement it,
> >>>> they both provides mutual exclusion protection.
> >>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Would something like this work better?
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Note: there is another bug in current code. The check for link
> >>>>>>>> state interrupt and link_ops could return -ENOTSUP and leave
> >>>>>>>> device in
> >>>>>> indeterminate state.
> >>>>>>>> The check should be done before calling PMD.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> diff --git a/lib/ethdev/rte_ethdev.c b/lib/ethdev/rte_ethdev.c
> >>>>>>>> index
> >>>>>>>> 0266cc82acb6..d6c163ed85e7 100644
> >>>>>>>> --- a/lib/ethdev/rte_ethdev.c
> >>>>>>>> +++ b/lib/ethdev/rte_ethdev.c
> >>>>>>>> @@ -1582,6 +1582,14 @@ rte_eth_dev_start(uint16_t port_id)
> >>>>>>>> return 0;
> >>>>>>>> }
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> + if (dev->data->dev_conf.intr_conf.lsc == 0 &&
> >>>>>>>> + dev->dev_ops->link_update == NULL) {
> >>>>>>>> + RTE_ETHDEV_LOG(INFO,
> >>>>>>>> + "Device with port_id=%"PRIu16" link update
> >>>>>>>> +not
> >>>>>> supported\n",
> >>>>>>>> + port_id);
> >>>>>>>> + return -ENOTSUP;
> >>>>>>>> + }
> >>>>>>>> +
> >>>>>>>> ret = rte_eth_dev_info_get(port_id, &dev_info);
> >>>>>>>> if (ret != 0)
> >>>>>>>> return ret;
> >>>>>>>> @@ -1591,9 +1599,7 @@ rte_eth_dev_start(uint16_t port_id)
> >>>>>>>> eth_dev_mac_restore(dev, &dev_info);
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> diag = (*dev->dev_ops->dev_start)(dev);
> >>>>>>>> - if (diag == 0)
> >>>>>>>> - dev->data->dev_started = 1;
> >>>>>>>> - else
> >>>>>>>> + if (diag != 0)
> >>>>>>>> return eth_err(port_id, diag);
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> ret = eth_dev_config_restore(dev, &dev_info, port_id); @@
> >>>>>>>> -1611,16
> >>>>>>>> +1617,18 @@ rte_eth_dev_start(uint16_t port_id)
> >>>>>>>> return ret;
> >>>>>>>> }
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> - if (dev->data->dev_conf.intr_conf.lsc == 0) {
> >>>>>>>> - if (*dev->dev_ops->link_update == NULL)
> >>>>>>>> - return -ENOTSUP;
> >>>>>>>> - (*dev->dev_ops->link_update)(dev, 0);
> >>>>>>>> - }
> >>>>>>>> -
> >>>>>>>> /* expose selection of PMD fast-path functions */
> >>>>>>>> eth_dev_fp_ops_setup(rte_eth_fp_ops + port_id, dev);
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> + /* ensure state is set before marking device ready */
> >>>>>>>> + rte_smp_wmb();
> >>>>>>>> +
> >>>>>>>> rte_ethdev_trace_start(port_id);
> >>>>>>>> +
> >>>>>>>> + /* Update current link state */
> >>>>>>>> + if (dev->data->dev_conf.intr_conf.lsc == 0)
> >>>>>>>> + (*dev->dev_ops->link_update)(dev, 0);
> >>>>>>>> +
> >>>>>>>> return 0;
> >>>>>>>> }
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> .
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >
