On Wed, Jan 13, 2021 at 2:28 PM Olivier Matz [off-list ref] wrote:

m->nb_seg must be reset on mbuf free whatever the value of m->next,
because it can happen that m->nb_seg is != 1. For instance in this
case:

  m1 = rte_pktmbuf_alloc(mp);
  rte_pktmbuf_append(m1, 500);
  m2 = rte_pktmbuf_alloc(mp);
  rte_pktmbuf_append(m2, 500);
  rte_pktmbuf_chain(m1, m2);
  m0 = rte_pktmbuf_alloc(mp);
  rte_pktmbuf_append(m0, 500);
  rte_pktmbuf_chain(m0, m1);

As rte_pktmbuf_chain() does not reset nb_seg in the initial m1
segment (this is not required), after this code the mbuf chain
have 3 segments:
  - m0: next=m1, nb_seg=3
  - m1: next=m2, nb_seg=2
  - m2: next=NULL, nb_seg=1

Then split this chain between m1 and m2, it would result in 2 packets:
  - first packet
    - m0: next=m1, nb_seg=2
    - m1: next=NULL, nb_seg=2
  - second packet
    - m2: next=NULL, nb_seg=1

Freeing the first packet will not restore nb_seg=1 in the second
segment. This is an issue because it is expected that mbufs stored
in pool have their nb_seg field set to 1.

Fixes: 8f094a9ac5d7 ("mbuf: set mbuf fields while in pool")
Cc: stable@dpdk.org

Signed-off-by: Olivier Matz <redacted>
Acked-by: Morten Brørup <redacted>
Acked-by: Ajit Khaparde <ajit.khaparde@broadcom.com>
Acked-by: Konstantin Ananyev <redacted>
---

v4
* add a unit test (suggested by David)

Olivier,

Thanks, for adding it.


Ali,

You reported some performance regression, did you confirm it?
If I get no reply by monday, I'll proceed with this patch.


Thanks.
-- 
David Marchand