[dpdk-dev] [EXT] [PATCH] cryptodev: free memzone when releasing cryptodev

[Akhil Goyal]

Hi Anoob,
> >
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> > When a cryptodev is created in a primary process, rte_cryptodev_data_alloc
> > reserves a memzone.
> > However, this memzone was not released when the cryptodev is uninitialized.
> > After that, new cryptodev cannot be created due to memzone name conflict.
> >
> > This commit frees the memzone when a cryptodev is uninitialized, fixing this
> > bug. This approach is chosen instead of keeping and reusing the old memzone,
> > because the new cryptodev could belong to a different NUMA socket.
> >
> > Also, rte_cryptodev_data pointer is now properly recorded in
> > cryptodev_globals.data array.
> >
> > Bugzilla ID: 105
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Junxiao Shi <git at mail1.yoursunny.com>
> > ---
> >  lib/librte_cryptodev/rte_cryptodev.c | 44
> > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-----
> >  1 file changed, 38 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/lib/librte_cryptodev/rte_cryptodev.c
> > b/lib/librte_cryptodev/rte_cryptodev.c
> > index 00c2cf4..666dfea 100644
> > --- a/lib/librte_cryptodev/rte_cryptodev.c
> > +++ b/lib/librte_cryptodev/rte_cryptodev.c
> > @@ -653,6 +653,31 @@ rte_cryptodev_data_alloc(uint8_t dev_id, struct
> > rte_cryptodev_data **data,
> >  	return 0;
> >  }
> >
> > +static inline int
> > +rte_cryptodev_data_free(uint8_t dev_id, struct rte_cryptodev_data
> > +**data) {
> > +	char mz_name[RTE_CRYPTODEV_NAME_MAX_LEN];
> > +	const struct rte_memzone *mz;
> > +	int n;
> > +
> > +	/* generate memzone name */
> > +	n = snprintf(mz_name, sizeof(mz_name), "rte_cryptodev_data_%u",
> > dev_id);
> > +	if (n >= (int)sizeof(mz_name))
> > +		return -EINVAL;
> 
> [Anoob] Is the above check needed?
I believe this being used while creating the memzone, so same logic is used while freeing it.
Just to be safe.

> 
> > +
> > +	mz = rte_memzone_lookup(mz_name);
> > +	if (mz == NULL)
> > +		return -ENOMEM;
> 
> [Anoob] Is the return value correct? Shouldn't it be -EINVAL?
> 
> @Akhil, thoughts?


I believe ENOMEM is correct, as there is no memory associated with the cryptodev_data.

> 
> > +
> > +	RTE_ASSERT(*data == mz->addr);
> > +	*data = NULL;
> > +
> > +	if (rte_eal_process_type() == RTE_PROC_PRIMARY)
> > +		return rte_memzone_free(mz);
> > +
> > +	return 0;
> > +}
> > +
> >  static uint8_t
> >  rte_cryptodev_find_free_device_index(void)
> >  {
> > @@ -687,16 +712,16 @@ rte_cryptodev_pmd_allocate(const char *name, int
> > socket_id)
> >  	cryptodev = rte_cryptodev_pmd_get_dev(dev_id);
> >
> >  	if (cryptodev->data == NULL) {
> > -		struct rte_cryptodev_data *cryptodev_data =
> > -				cryptodev_globals.data[dev_id];
> > +		struct rte_cryptodev_data **cryptodev_data =
> > +				&cryptodev_globals.data[dev_id];
> >
> > -		int retval = rte_cryptodev_data_alloc(dev_id, &cryptodev_data,
> > +		int retval = rte_cryptodev_data_alloc(dev_id, cryptodev_data,
> >  				socket_id);
> >
> > -		if (retval < 0 || cryptodev_data == NULL)
> > +		if (retval < 0 || *cryptodev_data == NULL)
> >  			return NULL;
> >
> > -		cryptodev->data = cryptodev_data;
> > +		cryptodev->data = *cryptodev_data;
> >
> >  		strlcpy(cryptodev->data->name, name,
> >  			RTE_CRYPTODEV_NAME_MAX_LEN);
> > @@ -724,13 +749,20 @@ rte_cryptodev_pmd_release_device(struct
> > rte_cryptodev *cryptodev)
> >  	if (cryptodev == NULL)
> >  		return -EINVAL;
> >
> > +	uint8_t dev_id = cryptodev->data->dev_id;
> > +
> 
> [Anoob] Variables need to be declared at the start of the function.
> https://doc.dpdk.org/guides/contributing/coding_style.html
> 
> >  	/* Close device only if device operations have been set */
> >  	if (cryptodev->dev_ops) {
> > -		ret = rte_cryptodev_close(cryptodev->data->dev_id);
> > +		ret = rte_cryptodev_close(dev_id);
> >  		if (ret < 0)
> >  			return ret;
> >  	}
> >
> > +	struct rte_cryptodev_data **cryptodev_data =
> > &cryptodev_globals.data[dev_id];
> 
> [Anoob] Same comment as above
> 
> > +	ret = rte_cryptodev_data_free(dev_id, cryptodev_data);
> > +	if (ret < 0)
> > +		return ret;
> > +
> >  	cryptodev->attached = RTE_CRYPTODEV_DETACHED;
> >  	cryptodev_globals.nb_devs--;
> >  	return 0;
> > --
> > 2.7.4