On 5/22/2023 10:55 AM, Ruifeng Wang wrote:
-----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.
In that case, rte_panic() test should be fixed as well.
My concern is that ideally, we shouldn't intentionally crash the test
app if something goes wrong, and calling rte_panic() accomplishes just
that - which is why I suggested running them in secondary processes
instead, so that any call into rte_panic happens inside a secondary
process, and the main test process doesn't crash even if the test has
failed.
--
Thanks,
Anatoly
