From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Adrien Mazarguil Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] ethdev: fix shallow copy of flow API RAW item Date: Mon, 21 May 2018 13:18:53 +0200 Message-ID: <20180521111853.GR6497@6wind.com> References: <20180516154052.16836-1-adrien.mazarguil@6wind.com> <20180516154052.16836-2-adrien.mazarguil@6wind.com> <465390c3-5aa9-e015-52bd-cec695d84c4c@intel.com> <58726116.gJB1vlhU96@xps> <20180521082401.GO6497@6wind.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Thomas Monjalon , dev@dpdk.org, stable@dpdk.org, Qi Zhang To: Ferruh Yigit Return-path: Received: from mail-wm0-f67.google.com (mail-wm0-f67.google.com [74.125.82.67]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 375111200A for ; Mon, 21 May 2018 13:19:09 +0200 (CEST) Received: by mail-wm0-f67.google.com with SMTP id l1-v6so26021889wmb.2 for ; Mon, 21 May 2018 04:19:09 -0700 (PDT) Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org Sender: "dev" On Mon, May 21, 2018 at 11:44:33AM +0100, Ferruh Yigit wrote: > On 5/21/2018 9:24 AM, Adrien Mazarguil wrote: > > On Sat, May 19, 2018 at 04:25:15PM +0200, Thomas Monjalon wrote: > >> 18/05/2018 19:06, Ferruh Yigit: > >>> On 5/16/2018 4:41 PM, Adrien Mazarguil wrote: > >>>> Like original commit mentioned below, this fix synchronizes flow rule copy > >>>> function with testpmd's own implementation following "app/testpmd: fix copy > >>>> of raw flow item (revisited)". > >>>> > >>>> Fixes: d0ad8648b1c5 ("ethdev: fix shallow copy of flow API RSS action") > >>>> Cc: stable@dpdk.org > >>>> Cc: Qi Zhang > >>>> > >>>> Signed-off-by: Adrien Mazarguil > >>> > >>> Hi Thomas, > >>> > >>> What do you suggest about this one? > >>> Scope is limited to rte_flow but still many features are now relies on rte_flow, > >>> what is your comment on getting this in rc5? > >> > >> We need to know exactly what is broken. > >> If nothing serious, it can wait 18.08. > >> > >> Adrien, please can you describe the use case, the issue and the impact? > > > > A prior patch [1] (applied as "app/testpmd: fix copy of raw flow item"), > > addresses a crash in testpmd's flow copy function. > > > > The first patch of the present series [2] addresses remaining issues with > > its behavior which is, in fact, what caused the original issue. > > > > While both patches focus on testpmd, rte_flow also exposes its own public > > copy function with the exact same code that breaks when encountering a RAW > > pattern item. Primary users for this function are bonding and failsafe > > PMDs. > > > > This patch therefore addresses both [1] and [2] at once for rte_flow_copy(). > > Hi Adrien, > > What is the effect of _not_ getting this patch, just trying to understand if > this is something to get for this release or postpone to next one. Hi Ferruh, *Not* getting this patch means rte_flow_copy() crashes when user creates a flow rule that involves the RAW pattern item on top of either bonding or failsafe PMDs. Ditto for any external application that relies on rte_flow_copy() combined with the RAW pattern item. I'll send v2 to provide a bit more info and fix the wrong commit ID on the "Fixes" line. > > [1] "app/testpmd: fix invalid memory access" > > http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/2018-May/100364.html > > > > [2] "app/testpmd: fix copy of raw flow item (revisited)" > > http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/2018-May/101994.html -- Adrien Mazarguil 6WIND