[PATCH] [PATCH v3] lib/ethdev: fix segfault in secondary process by validating dev_private pointer

[Ivan Malov]

Hi Khadem,

On Wed, 23 Jul 2025, Khadem Ullah wrote:

> In secondary processes, directly accessing 'dev->data->dev_private' can
> cause a segmentation fault if the primary process has exited or if the
> shared memory is no longer accessible.
>
> Secondary application not only breaking on device closing,
> but also getting segfault when we do "show device info all" from secondary
> after primary closes.
>
> This patch adds safety checks while using rte_mem_virt2phy(), with an
> unlikely() branch hint to minimize performance impact in the fast path.
> This ensures 'dev_private' is still valid before accessing it.
>
> Fixes: bdad90d12ec8 ("ethdev: change device info get callback to return int")
> Cc: stable at dpdk.org
>
> Signed-off-by: Khadem Ullah <14pwcse1224 at uetpeshawar.edu.pk>
> ---
> lib/ethdev/rte_ethdev.c | 15 ++++++++++++++-
> 1 file changed, 14 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/lib/ethdev/rte_ethdev.c b/lib/ethdev/rte_ethdev.c
> index dd7c00bc94..343e156a4f 100644
> --- a/lib/ethdev/rte_ethdev.c
> +++ b/lib/ethdev/rte_ethdev.c
> @@ -4079,6 +4079,13 @@ rte_eth_dev_info_get(uint16_t port_id, struct rte_eth_dev_info *dev_info)
>
> 	if (dev->dev_ops->dev_infos_get == NULL)
> 		return -ENOTSUP;
> +	if (rte_eal_process_type() == RTE_PROC_SECONDARY &&
> +		unlikely(rte_mem_virt2phy(dev->data->dev_private) == RTE_BAD_PHYS_ADDR)) {
> +			RTE_ETHDEV_LOG_LINE(ERR,
> +			"Secondary: dev_private not accessible (primary exited?)");
> +			rte_errno = ENODEV;
> +			return -rte_errno;
> +	}
> 	diag = dev->dev_ops->dev_infos_get(dev, dev_info);
> 	if (diag != 0) {
> 		/* Cleanup already filled in device information */
> @@ -4307,7 +4314,13 @@ rte_eth_macaddr_get(uint16_t port_id, struct rte_ether_addr *mac_addr)
> 			port_id);
> 		return -EINVAL;
> 	}
> -
> +	if (rte_eal_process_type() == RTE_PROC_SECONDARY &&
> +		(dev->data->mac_addrs == NULL)) {
> +			RTE_ETHDEV_LOG_LINE(ERR,
> +			"Secondary: dev_private not accessible (primary exited?)");
> +			rte_errno = ENODEV;
> +			return -rte_errno;
> +	}
> 	rte_ether_addr_copy(&dev->data->mac_addrs[0], mac_addr);
>
> 	rte_eth_trace_macaddr_get(port_id, mac_addr);

I see one more API has been augmented with the check. But community members may
still argue this is not robust, as many other APIs will also fail. So, even if
the task was to augment as many APIs as possible with the check, then the check
would still be required to be factorised/generalised somehow. What do you think?

Please also note that there are already macro invocations in many of these APIs,
for example, RTE_ETH_VALID_PORTID_OR_ERR_RET. Could be convenient.

Thank you.

> -- 
> 2.43.0
>
>