> -----Original Message----- > From: Burakov, Anatoly <anatoly.bura...@intel.com> > Sent: Monday, May 22, 2023 5:24 PM > To: Ruifeng Wang <ruifeng.w...@arm.com>; olivier.m...@6wind.com > Cc: dev@dpdk.org; sta...@dpdk.org; tho...@monjalon.net; > step...@networkplumber.org; Justin > He <justin...@arm.com>; Honnappa Nagarahalli <honnappa.nagaraha...@arm.com>; > nd > <n...@arm.com> > Subject: Re: [PATCH] test/mbuf: fix the forked process segment fault > > On 5/22/2023 7:01 AM, Ruifeng Wang wrote: > > Access of any memory in the hugepage shared file-backed area will > > trigger an unexpected forked child process segment fault. The root > > cause is DPDK doesn't support fork model [1] (calling rte_eal_init() before > > fork()). > > Forked child process can't be treated as a secondary process. > > > > Hence fix it by avoiding fork and doing verification in the main process. > > > > [1] https://mails.dpdk.org/archives/dev/2018-July/108106.html > > > > Fixes: af75078fece3 ("first public release") > > Cc: sta...@dpdk.org > > > > Signed-off-by: Jia He <justin...@arm.com> > > Signed-off-by: Ruifeng Wang <ruifeng.w...@arm.com> > > --- > > Would this be something that a secondary process-based test could test? > That's how we test rte_panic() and other calls.
This case validates mbuf. IMO there is no need to do validation in a secondary process. Unit test for rte_panic() also uses fork() and could have the same issue. > > -- > Thanks, > Anatoly
