[PATCH] app: fix mbuf_autotest in case of defined RTE_LIBRTE_MBUF_DEBUG
Olivier Matz
olivier.matz at 6wind.com
Wed Mar 15 17:02:33 CET 2023
Hello,
On Wed, Mar 15, 2023 at 11:29:50AM +0100, David Marchand wrote:
> Hello,
>
> On Mon, Mar 13, 2023 at 5:57 PM Pavel Ivashchenko
> <pivashchenko at nfware.com> wrote:
>
> app: fix mbuf_autotest in case of defined RTE_LIBRTE_MBUF_DEBUG
I suggest this title instead:
test/mbuf: fix mbuf autotest when mbuf debug is enabled
> >
> > How to reproduce:
> >
> > 1. Define RTE_LIBRTE_MBUF_DEBUG
> > 2. MALLOC_PERTURB_=178 DPDK_TEST=mbuf_autotest gdb --args obj-x86_64-linux-gnu/app/test/dpdk-test --file-prefix=mbuf_autotest
> >
> > PANIC in rte_mbuf_sanity_check():
> > bad pkt_len
> >
> > ...
> > #6 0x00007ffff7d3d4cc in rte_mbuf_sanity_check (m=m at entry=0x17f8c3400, is_header=is_header at entry=1) at ../lib/mbuf/rte_mbuf.c:384
> > #7 0x0000555555653d57 in rte_pktmbuf_free (m=0x17f8c3400) at ../lib/mbuf/rte_mbuf.h:1385
> > #8 0x000055555565c7a6 in test_nb_segs_and_next_reset () at ../app/test/test_mbuf.c:2752
> > #9 test_mbuf () at ../app/test/test_mbuf.c:2967
> > ...
> >
> > (gdb) frame 6
> > #6 0x00007ffff7d3d4cc in rte_mbuf_sanity_check (m=m at entry=0x17f8c3400, is_header=is_header at entry=1) at ../lib/mbuf/rte_mbuf.c:384
> > 384 rte_panic("%s\n", reason);
> > (gdb) p/d m->pkt_len
> > $4 = 1500
> >
> > Fixes: efc6f9104c80 ("mbuf: fix reset on mbuf free")
> > Cc: stable at dpdk.org
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Pavel Ivashchenko <pivashchenko at nfware.com>
>
> LGTM, thanks.
> Just a small comment.
>
>
> > ---
> > app/test/test_mbuf.c | 1 +
> > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
> >
> > diff --git a/app/test/test_mbuf.c b/app/test/test_mbuf.c
> > index 6cbb03b0af..d471a23805 100644
> > --- a/app/test/test_mbuf.c
> > +++ b/app/test/test_mbuf.c
> > @@ -2744,6 +2744,7 @@ test_nb_segs_and_next_reset(void)
> >
> > /* split m0 chain in two, between m1 and m2 */
> > m0->nb_segs = 2;
> > + m0->pkt_len -= 500;
>
> m0->pkt_len -= m2->data_len seems more readable and robust to me.
>
> Opinions?
Even if the 500 is hardcoded right above, this looks indeed better.
Or this seems fine too:
m0->pkt_len = m0->data_len + m1->data_len;
Thanks,
Olivier
>
>
> > m1->next = NULL;
> > m2->nb_segs = 1;
> >
>
>
> --
> David Marchand
>
More information about the stable
mailing list