prov/rxm: Enable IPv6 support in RxM #10
Closed
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Initial set of changes to support ipv6 based addresses. All places where there are hard-coded uses of ipv4 have been expanded. This results in changes to the socket provider protocol. Signed-off-by: Sean Hefty <[email protected]>
Remove unnecessary calls to convert socket addresses into strings and back again. Signed-off-by: Sean Hefty <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Dmitry Gladkov <[email protected]>
shefty
reviewed
Jun 27, 2018
prov/sockets/src/sock_fabric.c
Outdated
| struct addrinfo *rai = NULL, ai = { | ||
| .ai_socktype = SOCK_STREAM, | ||
| }; | ||
|
|
||
| memset(&addr, 0, sizeof(addr)); | ||
|
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I just updated my PR to address this and the windows build issues. I'm testing the windows build via travis now.
|
I've pulled your changes into my branch and pushed back out |
Thanks |
shefty
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Dec 18, 2020
ERROR: AddressSanitizer: stack-buffer-overflow on address 0x7fff4c61e7e0 at pc 0x14f2cb7ae0b9 bp 0x7fff4c61e650 sp 0x7fff4c61ddd8
WRITE of size 17 at 0x7fff4c61e7e0 thread T0
#0 0x14f2cb7ae0b8 (/lib64/libasan.so.5+0xb40b8)
#1 0x14f2cb7aedd2 in vsscanf (/lib64/libasan.so.5+0xb4dd2)
#2 0x14f2cb7aeede in __interceptor_sscanf (/lib64/libasan.so.5+0xb4ede)
#3 0x14f2cb230766 in ofi_addr_format src/common.c:401
#4 0x14f2cb233238 in ofi_str_toaddr src/common.c:780
#5 0x14f2cb314332 in vrb_handle_ib_ud_addr prov/verbs/src/verbs_info.c:1670
#6 0x14f2cb314332 in vrb_get_match_infos prov/verbs/src/verbs_info.c:1787
#7 0x14f2cb314332 in vrb_getinfo prov/verbs/src/verbs_info.c:1841
#8 0x14f2cb21fc28 in fi_getinfo_ src/fabric.c:1010
#9 0x14f2cb25fcc0 in ofi_get_core_info prov/util/src/util_attr.c:298
#10 0x14f2cb269b20 in ofix_getinfo prov/util/src/util_attr.c:321
#11 0x14f2cb3e29fd in rxd_getinfo prov/rxd/src/rxd_init.c:122
#12 0x14f2cb21fc28 in fi_getinfo_ src/fabric.c:1010
#13 0x407150 in ft_getinfo common/shared.c:794
#14 0x414917 in ft_init_fabric common/shared.c:1042
#15 0x402f40 in run functional/bw.c:155
#16 0x402f40 in main functional/bw.c:252
#17 0x14f2ca1b28e2 in __libc_start_main (/lib64/libc.so.6+0x238e2)
#18 0x401d1d in _start (/root/libfabric/fabtests/functional/fi_bw+0x401d1d)
Address 0x7fff4c61e7e0 is located in stack of thread T0 at offset 48 in frame
#0 0x14f2cb2306f3 in ofi_addr_format src/common.c:397
This frame has 1 object(s):
[32, 48) 'fmt' <== Memory access at offset 48 overflows this variable
HINT: this may be a false positive if your program uses some custom stack unwind mechanism or swapcontext
(longjmp and C++ exceptions *are* supported)
SUMMARY: AddressSanitizer: stack-buffer-overflow (/lib64/libasan.so.5+0xb40b8)
Shadow bytes around the buggy address:
0x1000698bbca0: 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00
0x1000698bbcb0: 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00
0x1000698bbcc0: 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00
0x1000698bbcd0: 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00
0x1000698bbce0: 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00
=>0x1000698bbcf0: 00 00 00 00 00 00 f1 f1 f1 f1 00 00[f2]f2 f3 f3
0x1000698bbd00: f3 f3 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 f1 f1
0x1000698bbd10: f1 f1 00 f2 f2 f2 f2 f2 f2 f2 00 f2 f2 f2 f2 f2
0x1000698bbd20: f2 f2 00 f2 f2 f2 f2 f2 f2 f2 00 f2 f2 f2 f2 f2
0x1000698bbd30: f2 f2 00 00 00 00 00 06 f2 f2 f2 f2 f2 f2 00 00
0x1000698bbd40: 00 00 00 06 f2 f2 f2 f2 f2 f2 00 00 00 00 00 00
Shadow byte legend (one shadow byte represents 8 application bytes):
Addressable: 00
Partially addressable: 01 02 03 04 05 06 07
Heap left redzone: fa
Freed heap region: fd
Stack left redzone: f1
Stack mid redzone: f2
Stack right redzone: f3
Stack after return: f5
Stack use after scope: f8
Global redzone: f9
Global init order: f6
Poisoned by user: f7
Container overflow: fc
Array cookie: ac
Intra object redzone: bb
ASan internal: fe
Left alloca redzone: ca
Right alloca redzone: cb
Fixes: 5d31276 ("common: Redo address string conversions")
Signed-off-by: Honggang Li <[email protected]>
shefty
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Dec 18, 2020
ERROR: AddressSanitizer: stack-buffer-overflow on address 0x7fff4c61e7e0 at pc 0x14f2cb7ae0b9 bp 0x7fff4c61e650 sp 0x7fff4c61ddd8
WRITE of size 17 at 0x7fff4c61e7e0 thread T0
#0 0x14f2cb7ae0b8 (/lib64/libasan.so.5+0xb40b8)
#1 0x14f2cb7aedd2 in vsscanf (/lib64/libasan.so.5+0xb4dd2)
#2 0x14f2cb7aeede in __interceptor_sscanf (/lib64/libasan.so.5+0xb4ede)
#3 0x14f2cb230766 in ofi_addr_format src/common.c:401
#4 0x14f2cb233238 in ofi_str_toaddr src/common.c:780
#5 0x14f2cb314332 in vrb_handle_ib_ud_addr prov/verbs/src/verbs_info.c:1670
#6 0x14f2cb314332 in vrb_get_match_infos prov/verbs/src/verbs_info.c:1787
#7 0x14f2cb314332 in vrb_getinfo prov/verbs/src/verbs_info.c:1841
#8 0x14f2cb21fc28 in fi_getinfo_ src/fabric.c:1010
#9 0x14f2cb25fcc0 in ofi_get_core_info prov/util/src/util_attr.c:298
#10 0x14f2cb269b20 in ofix_getinfo prov/util/src/util_attr.c:321
#11 0x14f2cb3e29fd in rxd_getinfo prov/rxd/src/rxd_init.c:122
#12 0x14f2cb21fc28 in fi_getinfo_ src/fabric.c:1010
#13 0x407150 in ft_getinfo common/shared.c:794
#14 0x414917 in ft_init_fabric common/shared.c:1042
#15 0x402f40 in run functional/bw.c:155
#16 0x402f40 in main functional/bw.c:252
#17 0x14f2ca1b28e2 in __libc_start_main (/lib64/libc.so.6+0x238e2)
#18 0x401d1d in _start (/root/libfabric/fabtests/functional/fi_bw+0x401d1d)
Address 0x7fff4c61e7e0 is located in stack of thread T0 at offset 48 in frame
#0 0x14f2cb2306f3 in ofi_addr_format src/common.c:397
This frame has 1 object(s):
[32, 48) 'fmt' <== Memory access at offset 48 overflows this variable
HINT: this may be a false positive if your program uses some custom stack unwind mechanism or swapcontext
(longjmp and C++ exceptions *are* supported)
SUMMARY: AddressSanitizer: stack-buffer-overflow (/lib64/libasan.so.5+0xb40b8)
Shadow bytes around the buggy address:
0x1000698bbca0: 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00
0x1000698bbcb0: 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00
0x1000698bbcc0: 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00
0x1000698bbcd0: 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00
0x1000698bbce0: 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00
=>0x1000698bbcf0: 00 00 00 00 00 00 f1 f1 f1 f1 00 00[f2]f2 f3 f3
0x1000698bbd00: f3 f3 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 f1 f1
0x1000698bbd10: f1 f1 00 f2 f2 f2 f2 f2 f2 f2 00 f2 f2 f2 f2 f2
0x1000698bbd20: f2 f2 00 f2 f2 f2 f2 f2 f2 f2 00 f2 f2 f2 f2 f2
0x1000698bbd30: f2 f2 00 00 00 00 00 06 f2 f2 f2 f2 f2 f2 00 00
0x1000698bbd40: 00 00 00 06 f2 f2 f2 f2 f2 f2 00 00 00 00 00 00
Shadow byte legend (one shadow byte represents 8 application bytes):
Addressable: 00
Partially addressable: 01 02 03 04 05 06 07
Heap left redzone: fa
Freed heap region: fd
Stack left redzone: f1
Stack mid redzone: f2
Stack right redzone: f3
Stack after return: f5
Stack use after scope: f8
Global redzone: f9
Global init order: f6
Poisoned by user: f7
Container overflow: fc
Array cookie: ac
Intra object redzone: bb
ASan internal: fe
Left alloca redzone: ca
Right alloca redzone: cb
Fixes: 5d31276 ("common: Redo address string conversions")
Signed-off-by: Honggang Li <[email protected]>
shefty
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Jan 20, 2023
If a posted receive matches with a saved receive, we may need to increment the rx counter. Set the rx counter increment callback to match that of the posted receive. This fixes an assert in xnet_cntr_inc() accessing a NULL cntr_inc function pointer. Program received signal SIGABRT, Aborted. 0x0000155552d4d37f in raise () from /lib64/libc.so.6 #0 0x0000155552d4d37f in raise () from /lib64/libc.so.6 #1 0x0000155552d37db5 in abort () from /lib64/libc.so.6 #2 0x0000155552d37c89 in __assert_fail_base.cold.0 () from /lib64/libc.so.6 #3 0x0000155552d45a76 in __assert_fail () from /lib64/libc.so.6 #4 0x00001555522967f9 in xnet_cntr_inc (ep=0x6e4c70, xfer_entry=0x6f7a30) at prov/tcp/src/xnet_cq.c:347 #5 0x0000155552296836 in xnet_report_cntr_success (ep=0x6e4c70, cq=0x6ca930, xfer_entry=0x6f7a30) at prov/tcp/src/xnet_cq.c:354 #6 0x000015555229970d in xnet_complete_saved (saved_entry=0x6f7a30) at prov/tcp/src/xnet_progress.c:153 #7 0x0000155552299961 in xnet_recv_saved (saved_entry=0x6f7a30, rx_entry=0x6f7840) at prov/tcp/src/xnet_progress.c:188 #8 0x00001555522946f8 in xnet_srx_tag (srx=0x6dd1c0, recv_entry=0x6f7840) at prov/tcp/src/xnet_srx.c:445 #9 0x0000155552294bb1 in xnet_srx_trecv (ep_fid=0x6dd1c0, buf=0x6990c4, len=4, desc=0x0, src_addr=0, tag=21474836494, ignore=3458764513820540928, context=0x7ffffffeb180) at prov/tcp/src/xnet_srx.c:558 #10 0x000015555228f60e in fi_trecv (ep=0x6dd1c0, buf=0x6990c4, len=4, desc=0x0, src_addr=0, tag=21474836494, ignore=3458764513820540928, context=0x7ffffffeb180) at ./include/rdma/fi_tagged.h:91 #11 0x00001555522900a7 in xnet_rdm_trecv (ep_fid=0x6d9fe0, buf=0x6990c4, len=4, desc=0x0, src_addr=0, tag=21474836494, ignore=3458764513820540928, context=0x7ffffffeb180) at prov/tcp/src/xnet_rdm.c:212 Signed-off-by: Sean Hefty <[email protected]>
shefty
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Jan 26, 2023
If a posted receive matches with a saved receive, we may need to increment the rx counter. Set the rx counter increment callback to match that of the posted receive. This fixes an assert in xnet_cntr_inc() accessing a NULL cntr_inc function pointer. Program received signal SIGABRT, Aborted. 0x0000155552d4d37f in raise () from /lib64/libc.so.6 #0 0x0000155552d4d37f in raise () from /lib64/libc.so.6 #1 0x0000155552d37db5 in abort () from /lib64/libc.so.6 #2 0x0000155552d37c89 in __assert_fail_base.cold.0 () from /lib64/libc.so.6 #3 0x0000155552d45a76 in __assert_fail () from /lib64/libc.so.6 #4 0x00001555522967f9 in xnet_cntr_inc (ep=0x6e4c70, xfer_entry=0x6f7a30) at prov/tcp/src/xnet_cq.c:347 #5 0x0000155552296836 in xnet_report_cntr_success (ep=0x6e4c70, cq=0x6ca930, xfer_entry=0x6f7a30) at prov/tcp/src/xnet_cq.c:354 #6 0x000015555229970d in xnet_complete_saved (saved_entry=0x6f7a30) at prov/tcp/src/xnet_progress.c:153 #7 0x0000155552299961 in xnet_recv_saved (saved_entry=0x6f7a30, rx_entry=0x6f7840) at prov/tcp/src/xnet_progress.c:188 #8 0x00001555522946f8 in xnet_srx_tag (srx=0x6dd1c0, recv_entry=0x6f7840) at prov/tcp/src/xnet_srx.c:445 #9 0x0000155552294bb1 in xnet_srx_trecv (ep_fid=0x6dd1c0, buf=0x6990c4, len=4, desc=0x0, src_addr=0, tag=21474836494, ignore=3458764513820540928, context=0x7ffffffeb180) at prov/tcp/src/xnet_srx.c:558 #10 0x000015555228f60e in fi_trecv (ep=0x6dd1c0, buf=0x6990c4, len=4, desc=0x0, src_addr=0, tag=21474836494, ignore=3458764513820540928, context=0x7ffffffeb180) at ./include/rdma/fi_tagged.h:91 #11 0x00001555522900a7 in xnet_rdm_trecv (ep_fid=0x6d9fe0, buf=0x6990c4, len=4, desc=0x0, src_addr=0, tag=21474836494, ignore=3458764513820540928, context=0x7ffffffeb180) at prov/tcp/src/xnet_rdm.c:212 Signed-off-by: Sean Hefty <[email protected]>
shefty
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Jan 28, 2023
If a posted receive matches with a saved receive, we may need to increment the rx counter. Set the rx counter increment callback to match that of the posted receive. This fixes an assert in xnet_cntr_inc() accessing a NULL cntr_inc function pointer. Program received signal SIGABRT, Aborted. 0x0000155552d4d37f in raise () from /lib64/libc.so.6 #0 0x0000155552d4d37f in raise () from /lib64/libc.so.6 #1 0x0000155552d37db5 in abort () from /lib64/libc.so.6 #2 0x0000155552d37c89 in __assert_fail_base.cold.0 () from /lib64/libc.so.6 #3 0x0000155552d45a76 in __assert_fail () from /lib64/libc.so.6 #4 0x00001555522967f9 in xnet_cntr_inc (ep=0x6e4c70, xfer_entry=0x6f7a30) at prov/tcp/src/xnet_cq.c:347 #5 0x0000155552296836 in xnet_report_cntr_success (ep=0x6e4c70, cq=0x6ca930, xfer_entry=0x6f7a30) at prov/tcp/src/xnet_cq.c:354 #6 0x000015555229970d in xnet_complete_saved (saved_entry=0x6f7a30) at prov/tcp/src/xnet_progress.c:153 #7 0x0000155552299961 in xnet_recv_saved (saved_entry=0x6f7a30, rx_entry=0x6f7840) at prov/tcp/src/xnet_progress.c:188 #8 0x00001555522946f8 in xnet_srx_tag (srx=0x6dd1c0, recv_entry=0x6f7840) at prov/tcp/src/xnet_srx.c:445 #9 0x0000155552294bb1 in xnet_srx_trecv (ep_fid=0x6dd1c0, buf=0x6990c4, len=4, desc=0x0, src_addr=0, tag=21474836494, ignore=3458764513820540928, context=0x7ffffffeb180) at prov/tcp/src/xnet_srx.c:558 #10 0x000015555228f60e in fi_trecv (ep=0x6dd1c0, buf=0x6990c4, len=4, desc=0x0, src_addr=0, tag=21474836494, ignore=3458764513820540928, context=0x7ffffffeb180) at ./include/rdma/fi_tagged.h:91 #11 0x00001555522900a7 in xnet_rdm_trecv (ep_fid=0x6d9fe0, buf=0x6990c4, len=4, desc=0x0, src_addr=0, tag=21474836494, ignore=3458764513820540928, context=0x7ffffffeb180) at prov/tcp/src/xnet_rdm.c:212 Signed-off-by: Sean Hefty <[email protected]>
shefty
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Feb 2, 2023
If a posted receive matches with a saved receive, we may need to increment the rx counter. Set the rx counter increment callback to match that of the posted receive. This fixes an assert in xnet_cntr_inc() accessing a NULL cntr_inc function pointer. Program received signal SIGABRT, Aborted. 0x0000155552d4d37f in raise () from /lib64/libc.so.6 #0 0x0000155552d4d37f in raise () from /lib64/libc.so.6 #1 0x0000155552d37db5 in abort () from /lib64/libc.so.6 #2 0x0000155552d37c89 in __assert_fail_base.cold.0 () from /lib64/libc.so.6 #3 0x0000155552d45a76 in __assert_fail () from /lib64/libc.so.6 #4 0x00001555522967f9 in xnet_cntr_inc (ep=0x6e4c70, xfer_entry=0x6f7a30) at prov/tcp/src/xnet_cq.c:347 #5 0x0000155552296836 in xnet_report_cntr_success (ep=0x6e4c70, cq=0x6ca930, xfer_entry=0x6f7a30) at prov/tcp/src/xnet_cq.c:354 #6 0x000015555229970d in xnet_complete_saved (saved_entry=0x6f7a30) at prov/tcp/src/xnet_progress.c:153 #7 0x0000155552299961 in xnet_recv_saved (saved_entry=0x6f7a30, rx_entry=0x6f7840) at prov/tcp/src/xnet_progress.c:188 #8 0x00001555522946f8 in xnet_srx_tag (srx=0x6dd1c0, recv_entry=0x6f7840) at prov/tcp/src/xnet_srx.c:445 #9 0x0000155552294bb1 in xnet_srx_trecv (ep_fid=0x6dd1c0, buf=0x6990c4, len=4, desc=0x0, src_addr=0, tag=21474836494, ignore=3458764513820540928, context=0x7ffffffeb180) at prov/tcp/src/xnet_srx.c:558 #10 0x000015555228f60e in fi_trecv (ep=0x6dd1c0, buf=0x6990c4, len=4, desc=0x0, src_addr=0, tag=21474836494, ignore=3458764513820540928, context=0x7ffffffeb180) at ./include/rdma/fi_tagged.h:91 #11 0x00001555522900a7 in xnet_rdm_trecv (ep_fid=0x6d9fe0, buf=0x6990c4, len=4, desc=0x0, src_addr=0, tag=21474836494, ignore=3458764513820540928, context=0x7ffffffeb180) at prov/tcp/src/xnet_rdm.c:212 Signed-off-by: Sean Hefty <[email protected]>
shefty
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Feb 5, 2023
If a posted receive matches with a saved receive, we may need to increment the rx counter. Set the rx counter increment callback to match that of the posted receive. This fixes an assert in xnet_cntr_inc() accessing a NULL cntr_inc function pointer. Program received signal SIGABRT, Aborted. 0x0000155552d4d37f in raise () from /lib64/libc.so.6 #0 0x0000155552d4d37f in raise () from /lib64/libc.so.6 #1 0x0000155552d37db5 in abort () from /lib64/libc.so.6 #2 0x0000155552d37c89 in __assert_fail_base.cold.0 () from /lib64/libc.so.6 #3 0x0000155552d45a76 in __assert_fail () from /lib64/libc.so.6 #4 0x00001555522967f9 in xnet_cntr_inc (ep=0x6e4c70, xfer_entry=0x6f7a30) at prov/tcp/src/xnet_cq.c:347 #5 0x0000155552296836 in xnet_report_cntr_success (ep=0x6e4c70, cq=0x6ca930, xfer_entry=0x6f7a30) at prov/tcp/src/xnet_cq.c:354 #6 0x000015555229970d in xnet_complete_saved (saved_entry=0x6f7a30) at prov/tcp/src/xnet_progress.c:153 #7 0x0000155552299961 in xnet_recv_saved (saved_entry=0x6f7a30, rx_entry=0x6f7840) at prov/tcp/src/xnet_progress.c:188 #8 0x00001555522946f8 in xnet_srx_tag (srx=0x6dd1c0, recv_entry=0x6f7840) at prov/tcp/src/xnet_srx.c:445 #9 0x0000155552294bb1 in xnet_srx_trecv (ep_fid=0x6dd1c0, buf=0x6990c4, len=4, desc=0x0, src_addr=0, tag=21474836494, ignore=3458764513820540928, context=0x7ffffffeb180) at prov/tcp/src/xnet_srx.c:558 #10 0x000015555228f60e in fi_trecv (ep=0x6dd1c0, buf=0x6990c4, len=4, desc=0x0, src_addr=0, tag=21474836494, ignore=3458764513820540928, context=0x7ffffffeb180) at ./include/rdma/fi_tagged.h:91 #11 0x00001555522900a7 in xnet_rdm_trecv (ep_fid=0x6d9fe0, buf=0x6990c4, len=4, desc=0x0, src_addr=0, tag=21474836494, ignore=3458764513820540928, context=0x7ffffffeb180) at prov/tcp/src/xnet_rdm.c:212 Signed-off-by: Sean Hefty <[email protected]>
shefty
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Feb 10, 2023
If a posted receive matches with a saved receive, we may need to increment the rx counter. Set the rx counter increment callback to match that of the posted receive. This fixes an assert in xnet_cntr_inc() accessing a NULL cntr_inc function pointer. Program received signal SIGABRT, Aborted. 0x0000155552d4d37f in raise () from /lib64/libc.so.6 #0 0x0000155552d4d37f in raise () from /lib64/libc.so.6 #1 0x0000155552d37db5 in abort () from /lib64/libc.so.6 #2 0x0000155552d37c89 in __assert_fail_base.cold.0 () from /lib64/libc.so.6 #3 0x0000155552d45a76 in __assert_fail () from /lib64/libc.so.6 #4 0x00001555522967f9 in xnet_cntr_inc (ep=0x6e4c70, xfer_entry=0x6f7a30) at prov/tcp/src/xnet_cq.c:347 #5 0x0000155552296836 in xnet_report_cntr_success (ep=0x6e4c70, cq=0x6ca930, xfer_entry=0x6f7a30) at prov/tcp/src/xnet_cq.c:354 #6 0x000015555229970d in xnet_complete_saved (saved_entry=0x6f7a30) at prov/tcp/src/xnet_progress.c:153 #7 0x0000155552299961 in xnet_recv_saved (saved_entry=0x6f7a30, rx_entry=0x6f7840) at prov/tcp/src/xnet_progress.c:188 #8 0x00001555522946f8 in xnet_srx_tag (srx=0x6dd1c0, recv_entry=0x6f7840) at prov/tcp/src/xnet_srx.c:445 #9 0x0000155552294bb1 in xnet_srx_trecv (ep_fid=0x6dd1c0, buf=0x6990c4, len=4, desc=0x0, src_addr=0, tag=21474836494, ignore=3458764513820540928, context=0x7ffffffeb180) at prov/tcp/src/xnet_srx.c:558 #10 0x000015555228f60e in fi_trecv (ep=0x6dd1c0, buf=0x6990c4, len=4, desc=0x0, src_addr=0, tag=21474836494, ignore=3458764513820540928, context=0x7ffffffeb180) at ./include/rdma/fi_tagged.h:91 #11 0x00001555522900a7 in xnet_rdm_trecv (ep_fid=0x6d9fe0, buf=0x6990c4, len=4, desc=0x0, src_addr=0, tag=21474836494, ignore=3458764513820540928, context=0x7ffffffeb180) at prov/tcp/src/xnet_rdm.c:212 Signed-off-by: Sean Hefty <[email protected]>
shefty
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Feb 16, 2023
If a posted receive matches with a saved receive, we may need to increment the rx counter. Set the rx counter increment callback to match that of the posted receive. This fixes an assert in xnet_cntr_inc() accessing a NULL cntr_inc function pointer. Program received signal SIGABRT, Aborted. 0x0000155552d4d37f in raise () from /lib64/libc.so.6 #0 0x0000155552d4d37f in raise () from /lib64/libc.so.6 #1 0x0000155552d37db5 in abort () from /lib64/libc.so.6 #2 0x0000155552d37c89 in __assert_fail_base.cold.0 () from /lib64/libc.so.6 #3 0x0000155552d45a76 in __assert_fail () from /lib64/libc.so.6 #4 0x00001555522967f9 in xnet_cntr_inc (ep=0x6e4c70, xfer_entry=0x6f7a30) at prov/tcp/src/xnet_cq.c:347 #5 0x0000155552296836 in xnet_report_cntr_success (ep=0x6e4c70, cq=0x6ca930, xfer_entry=0x6f7a30) at prov/tcp/src/xnet_cq.c:354 #6 0x000015555229970d in xnet_complete_saved (saved_entry=0x6f7a30) at prov/tcp/src/xnet_progress.c:153 #7 0x0000155552299961 in xnet_recv_saved (saved_entry=0x6f7a30, rx_entry=0x6f7840) at prov/tcp/src/xnet_progress.c:188 #8 0x00001555522946f8 in xnet_srx_tag (srx=0x6dd1c0, recv_entry=0x6f7840) at prov/tcp/src/xnet_srx.c:445 #9 0x0000155552294bb1 in xnet_srx_trecv (ep_fid=0x6dd1c0, buf=0x6990c4, len=4, desc=0x0, src_addr=0, tag=21474836494, ignore=3458764513820540928, context=0x7ffffffeb180) at prov/tcp/src/xnet_srx.c:558 #10 0x000015555228f60e in fi_trecv (ep=0x6dd1c0, buf=0x6990c4, len=4, desc=0x0, src_addr=0, tag=21474836494, ignore=3458764513820540928, context=0x7ffffffeb180) at ./include/rdma/fi_tagged.h:91 #11 0x00001555522900a7 in xnet_rdm_trecv (ep_fid=0x6d9fe0, buf=0x6990c4, len=4, desc=0x0, src_addr=0, tag=21474836494, ignore=3458764513820540928, context=0x7ffffffeb180) at prov/tcp/src/xnet_rdm.c:212 Signed-off-by: Sean Hefty <[email protected]>
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Signed-off-by: Dmitry Gladkov [email protected]