app/test-crypto-perf: fix invalid mbuf next operation
Checks
Commit Message
In fill_multi_seg_mbuf(), when remaining_segments is 0,
rte_mbuf m's next should pointer to NULL instead of a
new rte_mbuf, that casues setting m->next as NULL out
of the while loop to the invalid mbuf.
This commit fixes the invalid mbuf next operation.
Fixes: bf9d6702eca9 ("app/crypto-perf: use single mempool")
Signed-off-by: Suanming Mou <suanmingm@nvidia.com>
---
app/test-crypto-perf/cperf_test_common.c | 12 +++++++-----
1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
Comments
Hi Suanming,
Good catch. Please see inline.
Thanks,
Anoob
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Suanming Mou <suanmingm@nvidia.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, January 3, 2024 9:24 AM
> To: Ciara Power <ciara.power@intel.com>
> Cc: dev@dpdk.org
> Subject: [EXT] [PATCH] app/test-crypto-perf: fix invalid mbuf next operation
>
> External Email
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> In fill_multi_seg_mbuf(), when remaining_segments is 0, rte_mbuf m's next
> should pointer to NULL instead of a new rte_mbuf, that casues setting m->next
> as NULL out of the while loop to the invalid mbuf.
>
> This commit fixes the invalid mbuf next operation.
>
> Fixes: bf9d6702eca9 ("app/crypto-perf: use single mempool")
>
> Signed-off-by: Suanming Mou <suanmingm@nvidia.com>
> ---
> app/test-crypto-perf/cperf_test_common.c | 12 +++++++-----
> 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/app/test-crypto-perf/cperf_test_common.c b/app/test-crypto-
> perf/cperf_test_common.c
> index 932aab16df..ad2076dd2e 100644
> --- a/app/test-crypto-perf/cperf_test_common.c
> +++ b/app/test-crypto-perf/cperf_test_common.c
> @@ -72,13 +72,15 @@ fill_multi_seg_mbuf(struct rte_mbuf *m, struct
> rte_mempool *mp,
> rte_mbuf_refcnt_set(m, 1);
> next_mbuf = (struct rte_mbuf *) ((uint8_t *) m +
> mbuf_hdr_size + segment_sz);
> - m->next = next_mbuf;
> - m = next_mbuf;
> - remaining_segments--;
>
> + remaining_segments--;
> + if (remaining_segments > 0) {
[Anoob] Would it make sense to move assignment of next_mbuf also to here? That way, the checks will become self explanatory.
next_mbuf = (struct rte_mbuf *) ((uint8_t *) m +
mbuf_hdr_size + segment_sz);
> + m->next = next_mbuf;
> + m = next_mbuf;
> + } else {
> + m->next = NULL;
> + }
> } while (remaining_segments > 0);
> -
> - m->next = NULL;
> }
>
> static void
> --
> 2.34.1
Hi,
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Anoob Joseph <anoobj@marvell.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, January 3, 2024 7:22 PM
> To: Suanming Mou <suanmingm@nvidia.com>
> Cc: dev@dpdk.org; Ciara Power <ciara.power@intel.com>
> Subject: RE: [EXT] [PATCH] app/test-crypto-perf: fix invalid mbuf next operation
>
> Hi Suanming,
>
> Good catch. Please see inline.
>
> Thanks,
> Anoob
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Suanming Mou <suanmingm@nvidia.com>
> > Sent: Wednesday, January 3, 2024 9:24 AM
> > To: Ciara Power <ciara.power@intel.com>
> > Cc: dev@dpdk.org
> > Subject: [EXT] [PATCH] app/test-crypto-perf: fix invalid mbuf next
> > operation
> >
> > External Email
> >
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> > In fill_multi_seg_mbuf(), when remaining_segments is 0, rte_mbuf m's
> > next should pointer to NULL instead of a new rte_mbuf, that casues
> > setting m->next as NULL out of the while loop to the invalid mbuf.
> >
> > This commit fixes the invalid mbuf next operation.
> >
> > Fixes: bf9d6702eca9 ("app/crypto-perf: use single mempool")
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Suanming Mou <suanmingm@nvidia.com>
> > ---
> > app/test-crypto-perf/cperf_test_common.c | 12 +++++++-----
> > 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/app/test-crypto-perf/cperf_test_common.c
> > b/app/test-crypto- perf/cperf_test_common.c index
> > 932aab16df..ad2076dd2e 100644
> > --- a/app/test-crypto-perf/cperf_test_common.c
> > +++ b/app/test-crypto-perf/cperf_test_common.c
> > @@ -72,13 +72,15 @@ fill_multi_seg_mbuf(struct rte_mbuf *m, struct
> > rte_mempool *mp,
> > rte_mbuf_refcnt_set(m, 1);
> > next_mbuf = (struct rte_mbuf *) ((uint8_t *) m +
> > mbuf_hdr_size + segment_sz);
> > - m->next = next_mbuf;
> > - m = next_mbuf;
> > - remaining_segments--;
> >
> > + remaining_segments--;
> > + if (remaining_segments > 0) {
>
> [Anoob] Would it make sense to move assignment of next_mbuf also to here?
> That way, the checks will become self explanatory.
> next_mbuf = (struct rte_mbuf *) ((uint8_t *) m +
> mbuf_hdr_size + segment_sz);
>
Make sense. Maybe just like that:
m->next = (struct rte_mbuf *) ((uint8_t *) m +
mbuf_hdr_size + segment_sz);
m = m->next;
What do you think?
> > + m->next = next_mbuf;
> > + m = next_mbuf;
> > + } else {
> > + m->next = NULL;
> > + }
> > } while (remaining_segments > 0);
> > -
> > - m->next = NULL;
> > }
> >
> > static void
> > --
> > 2.34.1
Hi Suanming,
Please see inline.
Thanks,
Anoob
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Suanming Mou <suanmingm@nvidia.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, January 3, 2024 6:06 PM
> To: Anoob Joseph <anoobj@marvell.com>
> Cc: dev@dpdk.org; Ciara Power <ciara.power@intel.com>
> Subject: RE: [EXT] [PATCH] app/test-crypto-perf: fix invalid mbuf next operation
>
> Hi,
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Anoob Joseph <anoobj@marvell.com>
> > Sent: Wednesday, January 3, 2024 7:22 PM
> > To: Suanming Mou <suanmingm@nvidia.com>
> > Cc: dev@dpdk.org; Ciara Power <ciara.power@intel.com>
> > Subject: RE: [EXT] [PATCH] app/test-crypto-perf: fix invalid mbuf next
> > operation
> >
> > Hi Suanming,
> >
> > Good catch. Please see inline.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Anoob
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Suanming Mou <suanmingm@nvidia.com>
> > > Sent: Wednesday, January 3, 2024 9:24 AM
> > > To: Ciara Power <ciara.power@intel.com>
> > > Cc: dev@dpdk.org
> > > Subject: [EXT] [PATCH] app/test-crypto-perf: fix invalid mbuf next
> > > operation
> > >
> > > External Email
> > >
> > > --------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > -- In fill_multi_seg_mbuf(), when remaining_segments is 0, rte_mbuf
> > > m's next should pointer to NULL instead of a new rte_mbuf, that
> > > casues setting m->next as NULL out of the while loop to the invalid
> > > mbuf.
> > >
> > > This commit fixes the invalid mbuf next operation.
> > >
> > > Fixes: bf9d6702eca9 ("app/crypto-perf: use single mempool")
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Suanming Mou <suanmingm@nvidia.com>
> > > ---
> > > app/test-crypto-perf/cperf_test_common.c | 12 +++++++-----
> > > 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/app/test-crypto-perf/cperf_test_common.c
> > > b/app/test-crypto- perf/cperf_test_common.c index
> > > 932aab16df..ad2076dd2e 100644
> > > --- a/app/test-crypto-perf/cperf_test_common.c
> > > +++ b/app/test-crypto-perf/cperf_test_common.c
> > > @@ -72,13 +72,15 @@ fill_multi_seg_mbuf(struct rte_mbuf *m, struct
> > > rte_mempool *mp,
> > > rte_mbuf_refcnt_set(m, 1);
> > > next_mbuf = (struct rte_mbuf *) ((uint8_t *) m +
> > > mbuf_hdr_size + segment_sz);
> > > - m->next = next_mbuf;
> > > - m = next_mbuf;
> > > - remaining_segments--;
> > >
> > > + remaining_segments--;
> > > + if (remaining_segments > 0) {
> >
> > [Anoob] Would it make sense to move assignment of next_mbuf also to here?
> > That way, the checks will become self explanatory.
> > next_mbuf = (struct rte_mbuf *) ((uint8_t *) m +
> > mbuf_hdr_size + segment_sz);
> >
>
> Make sense. Maybe just like that:
> m->next = (struct rte_mbuf *) ((uint8_t *) m +
> mbuf_hdr_size + segment_sz);
> m = m->next;
>
> What do you think?
[Anoob] Yes. That's even better.
I think we can have line lengths upto 100 characters now. In case you find it easier to put in single line.
>
> > > + m->next = next_mbuf;
> > > + m = next_mbuf;
> > > + } else {
> > > + m->next = NULL;
> > > + }
> > > } while (remaining_segments > 0);
> > > -
> > > - m->next = NULL;
> > > }
> > >
> > > static void
> > > --
> > > 2.34.1
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Anoob Joseph <anoobj@marvell.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, January 3, 2024 11:43 PM
> To: Suanming Mou <suanmingm@nvidia.com>
> Cc: dev@dpdk.org; Ciara Power <ciara.power@intel.com>
> Subject: RE: [EXT] [PATCH] app/test-crypto-perf: fix invalid mbuf next operation
>
> Hi Suanming,
>
> Please see inline.
>
> Thanks,
> Anoob
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Suanming Mou <suanmingm@nvidia.com>
> > Sent: Wednesday, January 3, 2024 6:06 PM
> > To: Anoob Joseph <anoobj@marvell.com>
> > Cc: dev@dpdk.org; Ciara Power <ciara.power@intel.com>
> > Subject: RE: [EXT] [PATCH] app/test-crypto-perf: fix invalid mbuf next
> > operation
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Anoob Joseph <anoobj@marvell.com>
> > > Sent: Wednesday, January 3, 2024 7:22 PM
> > > To: Suanming Mou <suanmingm@nvidia.com>
> > > Cc: dev@dpdk.org; Ciara Power <ciara.power@intel.com>
> > > Subject: RE: [EXT] [PATCH] app/test-crypto-perf: fix invalid mbuf
> > > next operation
> > >
> > > Hi Suanming,
> > >
> > > Good catch. Please see inline.
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Anoob
> > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: Suanming Mou <suanmingm@nvidia.com>
> > > > Sent: Wednesday, January 3, 2024 9:24 AM
> > > > To: Ciara Power <ciara.power@intel.com>
> > > > Cc: dev@dpdk.org
> > > > Subject: [EXT] [PATCH] app/test-crypto-perf: fix invalid mbuf next
> > > > operation
> > > >
> > > > External Email
> > > >
> > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > --
> > > > -- In fill_multi_seg_mbuf(), when remaining_segments is 0,
> > > > rte_mbuf m's next should pointer to NULL instead of a new
> > > > rte_mbuf, that casues setting m->next as NULL out of the while
> > > > loop to the invalid mbuf.
> > > >
> > > > This commit fixes the invalid mbuf next operation.
> > > >
> > > > Fixes: bf9d6702eca9 ("app/crypto-perf: use single mempool")
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Suanming Mou <suanmingm@nvidia.com>
> > > > ---
> > > > app/test-crypto-perf/cperf_test_common.c | 12 +++++++-----
> > > > 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
> > > >
> > > > diff --git a/app/test-crypto-perf/cperf_test_common.c
> > > > b/app/test-crypto- perf/cperf_test_common.c index
> > > > 932aab16df..ad2076dd2e 100644
> > > > --- a/app/test-crypto-perf/cperf_test_common.c
> > > > +++ b/app/test-crypto-perf/cperf_test_common.c
> > > > @@ -72,13 +72,15 @@ fill_multi_seg_mbuf(struct rte_mbuf *m, struct
> > > > rte_mempool *mp,
> > > > rte_mbuf_refcnt_set(m, 1);
> > > > next_mbuf = (struct rte_mbuf *) ((uint8_t *) m +
> > > > mbuf_hdr_size + segment_sz);
> > > > - m->next = next_mbuf;
> > > > - m = next_mbuf;
> > > > - remaining_segments--;
> > > >
> > > > + remaining_segments--;
> > > > + if (remaining_segments > 0) {
> > >
> > > [Anoob] Would it make sense to move assignment of next_mbuf also to here?
> > > That way, the checks will become self explanatory.
> > > next_mbuf = (struct rte_mbuf *) ((uint8_t *) m +
> > > mbuf_hdr_size + segment_sz);
> > >
> >
> > Make sense. Maybe just like that:
> > m->next = (struct rte_mbuf *) ((uint8_t *) m +
> > mbuf_hdr_size + segment_sz);
> > m = m->next;
> >
> > What do you think?
>
> [Anoob] Yes. That's even better.
>
> I think we can have line lengths upto 100 characters now. In case you find it
> easier to put in single line.
OK, thanks for the suggestion.
>
> >
> > > > + m->next = next_mbuf;
> > > > + m = next_mbuf;
> > > > + } else {
> > > > + m->next = NULL;
> > > > + }
> > > > } while (remaining_segments > 0);
> > > > -
> > > > - m->next = NULL;
> > > > }
> > > >
> > > > static void
> > > > --
> > > > 2.34.1
@@ -72,13 +72,15 @@ fill_multi_seg_mbuf(struct rte_mbuf *m, struct rte_mempool *mp,
rte_mbuf_refcnt_set(m, 1);
next_mbuf = (struct rte_mbuf *) ((uint8_t *) m +
mbuf_hdr_size + segment_sz);
- m->next = next_mbuf;
- m = next_mbuf;
- remaining_segments--;
+ remaining_segments--;
+ if (remaining_segments > 0) {
+ m->next = next_mbuf;
+ m = next_mbuf;
+ } else {
+ m->next = NULL;
+ }
} while (remaining_segments > 0);
-
- m->next = NULL;
}
static void