From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Maxime Coquelin <maxime.coquelin@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC 01/19] vhost: protect virtio_net device struct
Date: Fri, 7 Jul 2017 09:31:23 +0200
Message-ID: <4f81404a-f4f9-add5-c62f-03224bd32c4a@redhat.com>
References: <20170704094922.11405-1-maxime.coquelin@redhat.com>
 <20170704094922.11405-2-maxime.coquelin@redhat.com>
 <20170705100758.2zmfgnek4wkqbio5@dhcp-192-218.str.redhat.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: dev@dpdk.org, Yuanhan Liu <yliu@fridaylinux.org>, mst@redhat.com,
 vkaplans@redhat.com, jasowang@redhat.com
To: Jens Freimann <jfreimann@redhat.com>
Return-path: <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>
Received: from mx1.redhat.com (mx1.redhat.com [209.132.183.28])
 by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 26B3A2C8
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Fri,  7 Jul 2017 09:31:31 +0200 (CEST)
In-Reply-To: <20170705100758.2zmfgnek4wkqbio5@dhcp-192-218.str.redhat.com>
Content-Language: en-US
List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions <dev.dpdk.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://dpdk.org/ml/options/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:dev@dpdk.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://dpdk.org/ml/listinfo/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org
Sender: "dev" <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>



On 07/05/2017 12:07 PM, Jens Freimann wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 04, 2017 at 11:49:04AM +0200, Maxime Coquelin wrote:
>> virtio_net device might be accessed while being reallocated
>> in case of NUMA awareness. This case might be theoretical,
>> but it will be needed anyway to protect vrings pages against
>> invalidation.
>>
>> The virtio_net devs are now protected with a readers/writers
>> lock, so that before reallocating the device, it is ensured
>> that it is not being referenced by the processing threads.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Maxime Coquelin <maxime.coquelin@redhat.com>
>> ---
>> lib/librte_vhost/vhost.c      | 223 
>> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-------
>> lib/librte_vhost/vhost.h      |   3 +-
>> lib/librte_vhost/vhost_user.c |  73 +++++---------
>> lib/librte_vhost/virtio_net.c |  17 +++-
>> 4 files changed, 228 insertions(+), 88 deletions(-)
> [...]
>> +int
>> +realloc_device(int vid, int vq_index, int node)
>> +{
>> +    struct virtio_net *dev, *old_dev;
>> +    struct vhost_virtqueue *vq;
>> +
>> +    dev = rte_malloc_socket(NULL, sizeof(*dev), 0, node);
>> +    if (!dev)
>> +        return -1;
>> +
>> +    vq = rte_malloc_socket(NULL, sizeof(*vq), 0, node);
>> +    if (!vq)
>> +        return -1;
>> +
>> +    old_dev = get_device_wr(vid);
>> +    if (!old_dev)
>> +        return -1;
> 
> Should we free vq and dev here?

Of course we should.
This will be fixed in next release.

Thanks,
Maxime