Issues around packet capture when secondary process is doing rx/tx
Stephen Hemminger
stephen at networkplumber.org
Wed Apr 3 02:14:04 CEST 2024
On Mon, 8 Jan 2024 15:13:25 +0000
Konstantin Ananyev <konstantin.ananyev at huawei.com> wrote:
> > I have been looking at a problem reported by Sandesh
> > where packet capture does not work if rx/tx burst is done in secondary process.
> >
> > The root cause is that existing rx/tx callback model just doesn't work
> > unless the process doing the rx/tx burst calls is the same one that
> > registered the callbacks.
> >
> > An example sequence would be:
> > 1. dumpcap (or pdump) as secondary tells pdump in primary to register callback
> > 2. secondary process calls rx_burst.
> > 3. rx_burst sees the callback but it has pointer pdump_rx which is not necessarily
> > at same location in primary and secondary process.
> > 4. indirect function call in secondary to bad location likely causes crash.
>
> As I remember, RX/TX callbacks were never intended to work over multiple processes.
> Right now RX/TX callbacks are private for the process, different process simply should not
> see/execute them.
> I.E. it callbacks list is part of 'struct rte_eth_dev' itself, not the rte_eth_dev.data that is shared
> between processes.
> It should be normal, wehn for the same port/queue you will end-up with different list of callbacks
> for different processes.
> So, unless I am missing something, I don't see how we can end-up with 3) and 4) from above:
> From my understanding secondary process will never see/call primary's callbacks.
>
> About pdump itself, it was a while when I looked at it last time, but as I remember to start it to work,
> server process has to call rte_pdump_init() which in terns register PDUMP_MP handler.
> I suppose for the secondary process to act as a 'pdump server' it needs to call rte_pdump_init() itself,
> though I am not sure such option is supported right now.
>
> >
> > Some possible workarounds.
> > 1. Keep callback list per-process: messy, but won't crash. Capture won't work
> > without other changes. In this primary would register callback, but secondaries
> > would not use them in rx/tx burst.
> >
> > 2. Replace use of rx/tx callback in pdump with change to rte_ethdev to have
> > a capture flag. (i.e. don't use indirection). Likely ABI problems.
> > Basically, ignore the rx/tx callback mechanism. This is my preferred
> > solution.
>
> It is not only the capture flag, it is also what to do with the captured packets
> (copy? If yes, then where to? examine? drop?, do something else?).
> It is probably not the best choice to add all these things into ethdev API.
>
> > 3. Some fix up mechanism (in EAL mp support?) to have each process fixup
> > its callback mechanism.
>
> Probably the easiest way to fix that - pass to rte_pdump_enable() extra information
> that would allow it to distinguish on what exact process (local, remote)
> we want to enable pdump functionality. Then it could act accordingly.
>
> >
> > 4. Do something in pdump_init to register the callback in same process context
> > (probably need callbacks to be per-process). Would mean callback is always
> > on independent of capture being enabled.
> >
> > 5. Get rid of indirect function call pointer, and replace it by index into
> > a static table of callback functions. Every process would have same code
> > (in this case pdump_rx) but at different address. Requires all callbacks
> > to be statically defined at build time.
>
> Doesn't look like a good approach - it will break many things.
>
> > The existing rx/tx callback is not safe id rx/tx burst is called from different process
> > than where callback is registered.
>
>
Have been looking into best way to fix this, and the real answer is not to use
callbacks but instead use a flag per-queue. The natural place to put these in
rte_ethdev_driver. BUT this will mean an ABI breakage, so will have to wait for 24.11
release. Sometimes fixing a design flaw means an ABI change.
More information about the dev
mailing list