On 3/5/2018 2:52 PM, Matan Azrad wrote:
> HI
>
> From: Ferruh Yigit, Sent: Monday, March 5, 2018 1:24 PM
>> On 1/18/2018 4:35 PM, Matan Azrad wrote:
>>> rte_eth_dev_data structure is allocated per ethdev port and can be
>>> used to get a data of the port internally.
>>>
>>> rte_eth_dev_attach_secondary tries to find the port identifier using
>>> rte_eth_dev_data name field comparison and may get an identifier of
>>> invalid port in case of this port was released by the primary process
>>> because the port release API doesn't reset the port data.
>>>
>>> So, it will be better to reset the port data in release time instead
>>> of allocation time.
>>>
>>> Move the port data reset to the port release API.
>>>
>>> Fixes: d948f596fee2 ("ethdev: fix port data mismatched in multiple
>>> process model")
>>> Cc: sta...@dpdk.org
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Matan Azrad <ma...@mellanox.com>
>>> ---
>>> lib/librte_ether/rte_ethdev.c | 2 +-
>>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/lib/librte_ether/rte_ethdev.c
>>> b/lib/librte_ether/rte_ethdev.c index 7044159..156231c 100644
>>> --- a/lib/librte_ether/rte_ethdev.c
>>> +++ b/lib/librte_ether/rte_ethdev.c
>>> @@ -204,7 +204,6 @@ struct rte_eth_dev *
>>> return NULL;
>>> }
>>>
>>> - memset(&rte_eth_dev_data[port_id], 0, sizeof(struct
>> rte_eth_dev_data));
>>> eth_dev = eth_dev_get(port_id);
>>> snprintf(eth_dev->data->name, sizeof(eth_dev->data->name),
>> "%s", name);
>>> eth_dev->data->port_id = port_id;
>>> @@ -252,6 +251,7 @@ struct rte_eth_dev *
>>> if (eth_dev == NULL)
>>> return -EINVAL;
>>>
>>> + memset(eth_dev->data, 0, sizeof(struct rte_eth_dev_data));
>>
>> Hi Matan,
>>
>> What most of the vdev release path does is:
>>
>> eth_dev = rte_eth_dev_allocated(...)
>> rte_free(eth_dev->data->dev_private);
>> rte_free(eth_dev->data);
>> rte_eth_dev_release_port(eth_dev);
>>
>> Since eth_dev->data freed, memset() it in rte_eth_dev_release_port() will
>> be problem.
>>
>> We don't run remove path that is why we didn't hit the issue but this seems
>> problem for all virtual PMDs.
>
> Yes, it is a problem and should be fixed:
> For vdevs which use private rte_eth_dev_data the remove order can be:
> private_data = eth_dev->data;
> rte_free(eth_dev->data->dev_private);
> rte_eth_dev_release_port(eth_dev); /* The last operation working on
> ethdev structure. */
> rte_free(private_data);
Do we need to save "private_data"?
>
>
>> Also rte_eth_dev_pci_release() looks problematic now.
>
> Yes, again, the last operation working on ethdev structure should be
> rte_eth_dev_release_port().
>
> So need to fix all vdevs and the rte_eth_dev_pci_release() function.
>
> Any comments?
>
