From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Olivier Matz <olivier.matz@6wind.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mempool: fix local cache initialization
Date: Thu, 9 Jun 2016 10:03:11 +0200
Message-ID: <575922BF.8040509@6wind.com>
References: <1465398627-35022-1-git-send-email-sergio.gonzalez.monroy@intel.com>
 <57586EAC.7090304@6wind.com> <1cafd17e-ffe1-83cc-e745-d3dedc5d44cf@intel.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
To: Sergio Gonzalez Monroy <sergio.gonzalez.monroy@intel.com>, dev@dpdk.org
Return-path: <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>
Received: from mail.droids-corp.org (zoll.droids-corp.org [94.23.50.67])
 by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D88A7C1C6
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Thu,  9 Jun 2016 10:03:17 +0200 (CEST)
In-Reply-To: <1cafd17e-ffe1-83cc-e745-d3dedc5d44cf@intel.com>
List-Id: patches and discussions about DPDK <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>

Hi Sergio,

On 06/09/2016 09:57 AM, Sergio Gonzalez Monroy wrote:
> Hi Olivier,
> 
> On 08/06/2016 20:14, Olivier Matz wrote:
>> Hi Sergio,
>>
>> Good catch, thanks. The patch looks ok, just few comments
>> on the commit log:
>>
>> On 06/08/2016 05:10 PM, Sergio Gonzalez Monroy wrote:
>>> The mempool local cache is not being initialize properly leading to
>> 'initialize' -> 'initialized' ?
>> and maybe 'is not being' -> 'was not' ?
>>
>>> undefined behavior in cases where the allocated memory was used and left
>>> with data.
>>>
>>> Fixes: af75078fece3 ("first public release")
>> I think it fixes this one instead:
>>
>> 213af31e0960 ("mempool: reduce structure size if no cache needed")
> 
> Fair enough, I thought the issue was there as we never
> initialized/zeroed the local cache
> on mempool creation. Usually we would have allocated all mempools on
> init (or close)
> and that would be it (initially all memory would be zeroed), but I think
> you could still
> manage to reproduce the problem if somehow you where to do something like:
> rte_malloc(), rte_free(), rte_mempool_create() and the memory was the
> one we got
> with malloc and never gets zeroed again.

Before Keith's commit (213af31e0960), the local cache was initialized
when doing the memset() because it was included in the mempool
structure. So I think the problem did not exist before this patch.
Or did I miss something in your explanation?

Regards,
Olivier