[ovs-discuss] Problems with vsctl vhost-del/connected device, OVS 2.4.0 with corrections from 2.4

[Daniele Di Proietto]

Thanks for reporting this problem

I think that if a user wants to remove a port, we should just remove the
port.

Do you have any thought on this Kevin? Do you know why this check was
introduced in the first place?

Thanks

On 24/02/2016 07:33, "discuss on behalf of Jan Wickbom"
<discuss-bounces at openvswitch.org on behalf of jan.wickbom at ericsson.com>
wrote:

>Hi,
>If a vhost-user port is deleted (vsctl del-port) while the vhost device
>is still attached to a VM, the port is ending up in some "semi-deleted"
>state. Even though we indicate a reject of the command in
>netdev_dpdk_vhost_destruct() by an ERROR log, we still run
>netdev_close()/netdev_unref() meaning the name is removed from
>netdev_shash and the memory is also freed (!), given back to dpdk.
>However, the device is NOT linked out from dpdk_list, meaning it will be
>handled in the dpdk_watchdog thread. Since the name is removed from
>netdev_shash, it is treated as not existing from an operators view.
>Whenever this newly freed memory is allocated again, a lot of strange
>things may happen to the "ghost device" present in the dpdk_list.
>
>I think the check for an attached vhost device should be done a lot
>earlier, maybe
>ofproto_port_delete() is a good place?
>
>I have only checked the vhost-user port type, may the same problem exists
>for other  types as well?
> 
>Anyone else seen the problem?
> 
>BR
>/jaw
>_______________________________________________
>discuss mailing list
>discuss at openvswitch.org
>http://openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss