[PATCH v1] ethdev: add indirect action async query

[Suanming Mou]

Hi,

> -----Original Message-----
> From: David Marchand <david.marchand at redhat.com>
> Sent: Thursday, November 17, 2022 4:32 PM
> To: Suanming Mou <suanmingm at nvidia.com>
> Cc: Ori Kam <orika at nvidia.com>; Aman Singh <aman.deep.singh at intel.com>;
> Yuying Zhang <yuying.zhang at intel.com>; NBU-Contact-Thomas Monjalon
> (EXTERNAL) <thomas at monjalon.net>; Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yigit at xilinx.com>;
> Andrew Rybchenko <andrew.rybchenko at oktetlabs.ru>; Ray Kinsella
> <mdr at ashroe.eu>; dev at dpdk.org
> Subject: Re: [PATCH v1] ethdev: add indirect action async query
> 
> On Thu, Nov 17, 2022 at 9:18 AM Suanming Mou <suanmingm at nvidia.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: David Marchand <david.marchand at redhat.com>
> > > Sent: Thursday, November 17, 2022 4:07 PM
> > > To: Suanming Mou <suanmingm at nvidia.com>
> > > Cc: Ori Kam <orika at nvidia.com>; Aman Singh
> > > <aman.deep.singh at intel.com>; Yuying Zhang <yuying.zhang at intel.com>;
> > > NBU-Contact-Thomas Monjalon
> > > (EXTERNAL) <thomas at monjalon.net>; Ferruh Yigit
> > > <ferruh.yigit at xilinx.com>; Andrew Rybchenko
> > > <andrew.rybchenko at oktetlabs.ru>; Ray Kinsella <mdr at ashroe.eu>;
> > > dev at dpdk.org
> > > Subject: Re: [PATCH v1] ethdev: add indirect action async query
> > >
> > > Hello,
> > >
> > > On Tue, Sep 20, 2022 at 9:12 AM Suanming Mou <suanmingm at nvidia.com>
> > > wrote:
> > > > @@ -2873,17 +2907,23 @@ port_queue_action_handle_destroy(portid_t
> > > port_id,
> > > >                          * of error.
> > > >                          */
> > > >                         memset(&error, 0x99, sizeof(error));
> > > > +                       job = calloc(1, sizeof(*job));
> > > > +                       if (!job) {
> > > > +                               printf("Queue action destroy job allocate failed\n");
> > > > +                               return -ENOMEM;
> > > > +                       }
> > > > +                       job->type = QUEUE_JOB_TYPE_ACTION_DESTROY;
> > > > +                       job->pia = pia;
> > > >
> > > >                         if (pia->handle &&
> > > >                             rte_flow_async_action_handle_destroy(port_id,
> > > > -                               queue_id, &attr, pia->handle, NULL, &error)) {
> > > > +                               queue_id, &attr, pia->handle, job,
> > > > + &error)) {
> > > >                                 ret = port_flow_complain(&error);
> > > >                                 continue;
> > > >                         }
> > > >                         *tmp = pia->next;
> > > >                         printf("Indirect action #%u destruction queued\n",
> > > >                                pia->id);
> > > > -                       free(pia);
> > > >                         break;
> > > >                 }
> > > >                 if (i == n)
> > >
> > > Our covscan tool reports a potential leak of "job" in this block.
> > > I am unclear whether it is a normal occurence, but it seems that if
> > > pia->handle == NULL, then job is leaked.
> >
> > OK, this function can only be called from destroying a created action handle.
> For the created action handle, the pia->handle should never be NULL here.
> > And we also have " if (actions[i] != pia->id) " several lines above to ensure it is
> a valid pia.
> > I agree from tools' point of view it looks like a leak here. But it should never
> happen.
> > Do you think we need a "fix" in that case?
> 
> - If you are sure of it, unnecessary checks must be removed.

Sure, I will create a patch to remove that redundant check.

> 
> - In pia->handle != NULL branch, won't "job" be leaked too if
> rte_flow_async_action_handle_destroy() fails?

Yes, you are right. 
Thanks, I will create a patch with the two changes.

> 
> 
> --
> David Marchand