[vpp-dev] linking error in VPP af_xdp_plugin using system libbpf

2021-09-08 Thread Nicholas Brown
When attempting to build vpp against system libraries (dpdk, libbpf, etc) on Debian Bullseye I get the following error when building the af_xdp_plugin.so Is the af_xdp plugin doing something unusual with libbpf? Thanks, Nick cd vpp/src mkdir mybuild cd mybuild cmake -GNinja

Re: [vpp-dev] VPP 2106 with Sanitizer enabled

2021-09-08 Thread chetan bhasin
Thanks Benoit. Actually Same out of tree plugins are working fine with SANITIZER Enabled on vpp 2101. Will update the result with the patch provided by you and test which Florin suggested . Thanks & Regards, Chetan On Wed, Sep 8, 2021 at 8:13 PM Benoit Ganne (bganne) wrote: > Here is maybe a

Re: [vpp-dev] VPP 2106 with Sanitizer enabled

2021-09-08 Thread Benoit Ganne (bganne) via lists.fd.io
Here is maybe a better fix: https://gerrit.fd.io/r/c/vpp/+/33693 My previous changeset was only hiding the underlying issue which is arrays passed to vlib_buffer_enqueue_to_next() must be big enough to allow for some overflow (because of the use of clib_mask_compare_u16() and

Re: [vpp-dev] Question regarding ip4/ip6 nexthop load balance flexibility #vnet

2021-09-08 Thread Neale Ranns
Hi Venky, Which nodes get called depends on the nature of the route. Take this trivial example DBGvpp# set int state loop0 up DBGvpp# set int ip addr loop0 10.0.0.1/24 This route is non recursive DBGvpp# ip route 1.1.1.1/32 via 10.0.0.2 loop0 This one is recursive DBGvpp# ip route

Re: [vpp-dev] Regarding assert in vlib_buffer_advance

2021-09-08 Thread Ole Troan
Prashant, > Thanks for the feedback. > Out of curiosity, what is the motivation of this contract about > minimal length of chained buffer data -- surely, my case being in > point, the chaining framework should not make any assumptions about > how the user would use it. There are lots of features

Re: [vpp-dev] Regarding assert in vlib_buffer_advance

2021-09-08 Thread Damjan Marion via lists.fd.io
It is mainly about first segment. Majority of vpp code asumes that packet headers are in the first segment. This is to prevent crashes due to headers being split between 2. — Damjan > On 08.09.2021., at 11:31, Prashant Upadhyaya wrote: > > Hi Damjan, > > Thanks for the feedback. > Out of

Re: [vpp-dev] Regarding assert in vlib_buffer_advance

2021-09-08 Thread Prashant Upadhyaya
Hi Damjan, Thanks for the feedback. Out of curiosity, what is the motivation of this contract about minimal length of chained buffer data -- surely, my case being in point, the chaining framework should not make any assumptions about how the user would use it. Regards -Prashant On Tue, Sep 7,

Re: [vpp-dev] VPP 2106 with Sanitizer enabled

2021-09-08 Thread Florin Coras
Hi Chetan, Something like the following should exercise using iperf and homegrown test apps most of the components of the host stack, i.e., vcl, session layer and the transports, including tcp: make test-debug VPP_EXTRA_CMAKE_ARGS=-DVPP_ENABLE_SANITIZE_ADDR=ON CC=gcc-10 TEST=vcl