ethdev: fix secondary process change share memory
Checks
Commit Message
Hi all，I am from Sangfor Tech.I found a bug when using DPDK in
multiprocess scenario.The secondary process enters
"rte_eth_dev_pci_copy_info" function when initializing.Then it
sets the value of struct "rte_eth_dev_data.dev_flags" to zero,
but this struct is shared by primary process and secondary
process, and the value change is unexpected by primary process.
This may cause very serious damage.I think
the secondary process should not enter "rte_eth_dev_pci_copy_info"
function or changes the value of struct "rte_eth_dev_data.dev_flags"
in shared memory.
I fixed this bug by adding an if-statement to forbid the secondary
process changing the above-mentioned value.
Thansk, All.
Cc: stable@dpdk.org
Signed-off-by: Fang TongHao <fangtonghao@sangfor.com.cn>
---
lib/librte_ethdev/rte_ethdev_pci.h | 19 ++++++++++---------
1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
Comments
On 09-Jan-20 2:35 AM, Fang TongHao wrote:
> Hi all，I am from Sangfor Tech.I found a bug when using DPDK in
> multiprocess scenario.The secondary process enters
> "rte_eth_dev_pci_copy_info" function when initializing.Then it
> sets the value of struct "rte_eth_dev_data.dev_flags" to zero,
> but this struct is shared by primary process and secondary
> process, and the value change is unexpected by primary process.
> This may cause very serious damage.I think
> the secondary process should not enter "rte_eth_dev_pci_copy_info"
> function or changes the value of struct "rte_eth_dev_data.dev_flags"
> in shared memory.
> I fixed this bug by adding an if-statement to forbid the secondary
> process changing the above-mentioned value.
> Thansk, All.
Hi,
Thanks for your contribution! However, your patch could use some
improvements, as it currently doesn't meet the standards expected by the
DPDK community.
First of all, the commit log shouldn't read like an email :) Suggested
rewording:
----
When secondary process enters `rte_eth_copy_pci_info`, it resets the
rte_eth_dev_data.dev_flags to zero. This may cause unintended
consequences because this is a structure that is shared between primary
and secondary processes. Fix it by only overwriting the flags if the
process is primary.
---
Your commit message has also incorrectly called out the offending
function as `rte_eth_dev_copy_pci_info`, while it is actually named
`rte_eth_copy_pci_info`.
Also, a Fixes: tag is missing. Please use git blame to find the commit
that introduced the issue, and use the 'fixline' formatting. Please see
Contribution Guidelines[1] on how to properly format fixline.
You will find instructions on how to submit a version 2 of the patch in
the same document[2].
[1]
https://doc.dpdk.org/guides/contributing/patches.html#commit-messages-body
[2]
https://doc.dpdk.org/guides/contributing/patches.html#steps-to-getting-your-patch-merged
@@ -59,15 +59,16 @@ rte_eth_copy_pci_info(struct rte_eth_dev *eth_dev,
}
eth_dev->intr_handle = &pci_dev->intr_handle;
-
- eth_dev->data->dev_flags = 0;
- if (pci_dev->driver->drv_flags & RTE_PCI_DRV_INTR_LSC)
- eth_dev->data->dev_flags |= RTE_ETH_DEV_INTR_LSC;
- if (pci_dev->driver->drv_flags & RTE_PCI_DRV_INTR_RMV)
- eth_dev->data->dev_flags |= RTE_ETH_DEV_INTR_RMV;
-
- eth_dev->data->kdrv = pci_dev->kdrv;
- eth_dev->data->numa_node = pci_dev->device.numa_node;
+ if (rte_eal_process_type() == RTE_PROC_PRIMARY) {
+ eth_dev->data->dev_flags = 0;
+ if (pci_dev->driver->drv_flags & RTE_PCI_DRV_INTR_LSC)
+ eth_dev->data->dev_flags |= RTE_ETH_DEV_INTR_LSC;
+ if (pci_dev->driver->drv_flags & RTE_PCI_DRV_INTR_RMV)
+ eth_dev->data->dev_flags |= RTE_ETH_DEV_INTR_RMV;
+
+ eth_dev->data->kdrv = pci_dev->kdrv;
+ eth_dev->data->numa_node = pci_dev->device.numa_node;
+ }
}
static inline int