On Tue, Jul 9, 2024 at 1:49 AM 赖香武 <[email protected]> wrote: > > hi, llya and Michael > > Can you take the time to take a look at my patch? Thank you.
Hello, I wasn't able to reproduce the crash using your method and unfortunately the stack trace appears to be missing debug symbols. Looking at the code, I can guess at some ways that would trigger the crash. Instead of changing the current behaviour on expiration I think it would be better to just check last_sent_idx before accessing frag_list[].pkt. If last_sent_idx != IPF_INVALID_IDX, then functions like ipf_post_execute_reass_pkts(), ipf_process_frag(), etc can just return immediately. Thanks, M > > At 2024-05-28 23:16:46, "Ilya Maximets" <[email protected]> wrote: > >On 5/23/24 09:40, laixiangwu wrote: > >> Description: > >> > >> when 1) The fragment timeout is between 15 seconds and 25 seconds; 2) > >> The ipf_list currently has received more than 32 fragments, and there > >> are other fragments of same big packet that have not been received. > >> > >> When the above two scenario conditions are met, due to exceeding the > >> capacity of the packet batch(here is 32), ipf_dp_packet_batch_add > >> returns false, and ipf_list will not be cleared. However, the 32 > >> fragments packets added to the packet batch will be processed normally. > >> When receiving the subsequent fragments of the ipf_list, because the > >> first 32 fragments have been processed, when processing subsequent > >> fragment packets, relevant information about the processed fragment > >> packets will be read，therefore will occur carsh. > >> One solution is do not forward timeout fragment packets from the above > >> scenarios, that is, do not add them to the packet batch, and handle > >> other scenarios according to the original logic. > >> Signed-off-by: laixiangwu <[email protected]> > >> --- > >> lib/ipf.c | 10 ++++------ > >> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-) > > > >Hi, laixiangwu. This version of the patch looks the same as the > >previous one here: > > > > https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/openvswitch/patch/[email protected]/ > > > >And I see Mike asked a few questions for the approach there. > >Could you, please, answer those? > > > >For now, I'll mark this patch with 'Changes Requested'. > > > >If you plan to send a new version based on Mike's comments, please, add > >'v6' to the subject prefix, i.e. [PATCH v6], since it's technically a > >6th version of it. > > > >Best regards, Ilya Maximets. _______________________________________________ dev mailing list [email protected] https://mail.openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/ovs-dev
