From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-wr1-f65.google.com (mail-wr1-f65.google.com [209.85.221.65]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 72AB1235 for ; Wed, 25 Jul 2018 08:59:03 +0200 (CEST) Received: by mail-wr1-f65.google.com with SMTP id h14-v6so6243586wrw.13 for ; Tue, 24 Jul 2018 23:59:03 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=6wind-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-disposition:content-transfer-encoding:in-reply-to:openpgp :user-agent; bh=cyRgUAULsJqpzuob765hd4FNMzvQJ7FPY2ZdmUIwmxs=; b=E75GBxHRwMI13EFsqVfyXceznnog94Fa06+Hr0Rtn4Ofhq5gXS1jrVidnJqsczzufN ErT32dKdZwpGsXrZkuq/o/hOFEv+R4KfGN3Kfno1EoOWKserpZvSat4ErqxNWygCnaNo w+8JWAVfwGNuVzc5OrBfZmIm3DojyshSXR+CI/HX5R4yEzK0YR6z+io1l8SakH96UyfK luiTaNukoB9LpU9Y/1ZPZh5f90SF83sdT7btRl3TiuSwu1OYeJ48+gDw0cpRuZOH9Kn0 WPRO9FMAlVKAoqt6l+cYJ8bZhq8QEIKOZvpmT9X0y2UPUIOLwnxk1ULVXMzbTjFmmWbE KzIg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references :mime-version:content-disposition:content-transfer-encoding :in-reply-to:openpgp:user-agent; bh=cyRgUAULsJqpzuob765hd4FNMzvQJ7FPY2ZdmUIwmxs=; b=t3OMVKkrpjoPc0AKSwkSlQq1WeIfCKZOZ7eKrejImCi4ZRUQkPizT62/ZZ5Jfkhhta AhfX5+ZBh5GHSS4Gtzzeuv6htZ9k73fQj3pmal5RC8NnTwwoBjR/gQHPRLXeNxzGsyEP +jLVrgp7ahW6cB5dFkRAFoATxc0yJC/6QUmR2a60o2U4CH8E0l8R3caCYrPZ1I6yKzFT 5PTU6i8P/iggGEt+uZudTCXojoS080pSA2C5qBv1k9T3+mYH352KVbekHIHYyRH7505o si9yIYIU4Mm5q3YQZINuMGZsh/skrBmRrIXvxs02kUEQem4Y+bqGcNZYDYwQpY8uYjxf Sa3w== X-Gm-Message-State: AOUpUlHTXz3HidOiqMu/04QDOGzoI5gAMBpPu2+yxjM8B5EjwfyuH5/8 KgT7POz+16xx2yG8xeK3RbJ/ X-Google-Smtp-Source: AAOMgpc9nowiHMfX/a29dP4AmisuS2HmaDdsHk6sajGmVgk+Tt3oKQPwPcZdIej5sp5ycTc2KGwnxg== X-Received: by 2002:a5d:46d1:: with SMTP id g17-v6mr13124222wrs.76.1532501943173; Tue, 24 Jul 2018 23:59:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: from laranjeiro-vm.dev.6wind.com (host.78.145.23.62.rev.coltfrance.com. [62.23.145.78]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id m13-v6sm931006wru.93.2018.07.24.23.59.02 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-CHACHA20-POLY1305 bits=256/256); Tue, 24 Jul 2018 23:59:02 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2018 08:58:58 +0200 From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?N=E9lio?= Laranjeiro To: Yongseok Koh Cc: Shahaf Shuler , "dev@dpdk.org" Message-ID: <20180725065858.wx74u2jcxuysigee@laranjeiro-vm.dev.6wind.com> References: <20180723182744.1179-1-yskoh@mellanox.com> <20180724065742.xynuw5ddr5pnesju@laranjeiro-vm.dev.6wind.com> <6FFD0DAF-8C3A-471E-A7B0-47A8478D1702@mellanox.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <6FFD0DAF-8C3A-471E-A7B0-47A8478D1702@mellanox.com> OpenPGP: id=A0075DA8F66A5949 preference=signencrypt User-Agent: NeoMutt/20170113 (1.7.2) Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] net/mlx5: fix possible endless loop when clearing flow flags X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2018 06:59:03 -0000 On Tue, Jul 24, 2018 at 09:47:19PM +0000, Yongseok Koh wrote: > > > On Jul 23, 2018, at 11:57 PM, Nélio Laranjeiro wrote: > > > > On Mon, Jul 23, 2018 at 11:27:44AM -0700, Yongseok Koh wrote: > >> If one of (*priv->rxqs)[] is null, the for loop can iterate infinitely as > >> idx can't be increased. > >> > >> Fixes: cd24d526395e ("net/mlx5: add mark/flag flow action") > >> Cc: Nelio Laranjeiro > >> > >> Signed-off-by: Yongseok Koh > >> --- > >> drivers/net/mlx5/mlx5_flow.c | 8 +++----- > >> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) > >> > >> diff --git a/drivers/net/mlx5/mlx5_flow.c b/drivers/net/mlx5/mlx5_flow.c > >> index 32854198b..c156f01eb 100644 > >> --- a/drivers/net/mlx5/mlx5_flow.c > >> +++ b/drivers/net/mlx5/mlx5_flow.c > >> @@ -2762,22 +2762,20 @@ mlx5_flow_rxq_flags_clear(struct rte_eth_dev *dev) > >> { > >> struct priv *priv = dev->data->dev_private; > >> unsigned int i; > >> - unsigned int idx; > >> > >> - for (idx = 0, i = 0; idx != priv->rxqs_n; ++i) { > >> + for (i = 0; i != priv->rxqs_n; ++i) { > >> struct mlx5_rxq_ctrl *rxq_ctrl; > >> unsigned int j; > >> > >> - if (!(*priv->rxqs)[idx]) > >> + if (!(*priv->rxqs)[i]) > >> continue; > >> - rxq_ctrl = container_of((*priv->rxqs)[idx], > >> + rxq_ctrl = container_of((*priv->rxqs)[i], > >> struct mlx5_rxq_ctrl, rxq); > >> rxq_ctrl->flow_mark_n = 0; > >> rxq_ctrl->rxq.mark = 0; > >> for (j = 0; j != MLX5_FLOW_TUNNEL; ++j) > >> rxq_ctrl->flow_tunnels_n[j] = 0; > >> rxq_ctrl->rxq.tunnel = 0; > >> - ++idx; > >> } > >> } > >> > >> -- > >> 2.11.0 > > > > This patch is wrong, (*priv->rxqs)[i] may un-initialised by the > > application, the number of queues says how are in used, it does not mean > > they are contiguous in the rxqs arrays and this due to the DPDK API > > which configure the number of queues with rte_eth_dev_configure() > > whereas queues are instantiated with rte_eth_rx_queue_setup() which > > takes an position in the array as parameter. > > > > Indeed this code is wrong, idx should always increase whereas i should > > only increase if the (*priv->rxqs)[idx] is non null. > > I don't understand what you mean. In rte_eth_rx_queue_setup(), rx_queue_id is > checked against dev->data->nb_rx_queues. > > if (rx_queue_id >= dev->data->nb_rx_queues) { > RTE_ETHDEV_LOG(ERR, "Invalid RX queue_id=%u\n", rx_queue_id); > return -EINVAL; > } > > This means the index should be [0, priv->rxqs_n) anyway. There is the same check > in mlx5_rx_queue_setup(). If user mistakenly doesn't configure some of queues, > then the corresponding slots could be null but indexes are still within the > range. > > Then, what's your point of having both i and idx? I remember I've face some issue while I've re-write the PMD to work on top of flow API. That's why I've introduce such logic, but it seems not necessary as it comply with the documentation of the function and the code itself. Acked-by: Nelio Laranjeiro -- Nélio Laranjeiro 6WIND