Re: [dpdk-dev]   *rte_vhost_rx_queue_count* should be protected by vq->access_lock

On Thu, Aug 15, 2019 at 09:14:52AM +, He Peng wrote: > Hi, > > > Would you please provide  a list of impacted APIs, thus we can check if our > code has further issues. b.t.w, we are now using dpdk 18.11. I'm looking into this issue. The API of the builtin backend is supposed to be protected

Re: [dpdk-dev]   *rte_vhost_rx_queue_count* should be protected by vq->access_lock

Hi, Would you please provide  a list of impacted APIs, thus we can check if our code has further issues. b.t.w, we are now using dpdk 18.11. Thanks. 2019年8月14日 下午11:09，Tiwei Bie 写道： On Wed, Aug 14, 2019 at 03:31:09AM +, He Peng wrote: Hi， We found that *rte_vhost_rx_queue_count* is

Re: [dpdk-dev] *rte_vhost_rx_queue_count* should be protected by vq->access_lock

On Wed, Aug 14, 2019 at 03:31:09AM +, He Peng wrote: > Hi， > > We found that *rte_vhost_rx_queue_count* is not protected by vq->access_lock, > and the access to vq->avail->idx is not thread-safe, since at the same time, > the vq->avail  might be  > > set by *vring_invalidate* when some vhost

[dpdk-dev] *rte_vhost_rx_queue_count* should be protected by vq->access_lock

Hi， We found that *rte_vhost_rx_queue_count* is not protected by vq->access_lock, and the access to vq->avail->idx is not thread-safe, since at the same time, the vq->avail  might be  set by *vring_invalidate* when some vhost-user messages arrived, such as VRING_SET_ADDRESS, VRING_SET_MEM_TAB