On Mon, Apr 27, 2026 at 10:33:42AM +0000, Sunyang Wu wrote: > Hi Bruce, > > Thanks for the review. > > I do not think a memory barrier alone would be sufficient here. > > In the intended case, prompt_exit() is used from the signal path to > interrupt the thread currently running prompt(). In that case, the > NULL store is already ordered before cmdline_stdin_exit(). However, > for a later signal or a signal delivered to another thread, a plain > barrier would still not make concurrent access to testpmd_cl safe. > > I think the better fix is to keep the existing prompt_exit() behavior, > but use a local cmdline pointer for lifetime management and atomic > load/store for testpmd_cl so the signal path cannot observe freed > state. > > If this approach looks reasonable to you, I will send a v2. >
Sounds reasonable to me, but I'm not an expert on the behaviour of weakly ordered platforms! I think do a v2 with your proposal anyway, since it's likely an improvement over the v1. /Bruce
