From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>
Received: from dpdk.org (dpdk.org [92.243.14.124])
by inbox.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CFD38A04C3;
Wed, 13 Nov 2019 19:53:46 +0100 (CET)
Received: from [92.243.14.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 747052B8B;
Wed, 13 Nov 2019 19:53:46 +0100 (CET)
Received: from mail-pg1-f194.google.com (mail-pg1-f194.google.com
[209.85.215.194]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 71A3327D
for <dev@dpdk.org>; Wed, 13 Nov 2019 19:53:45 +0100 (CET)
Received: by mail-pg1-f194.google.com with SMTP id q22so1936333pgk.2
for <dev@dpdk.org>; Wed, 13 Nov 2019 10:53:45 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
d=networkplumber-org.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623;
h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:in-reply-to:references
:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding;
bh=wdU/nQqO550gP0Iz6qpPLVbh9irO817rF930swWJkQQ=;
b=lo7EMSsGU+HV2tgnvcmvgHjXBnJIULsTJrW0+rQPol0n9daIwtSUBkasASUig7sv5Y
P6XIVegWUFP+RRYzRq5r5gtCYRi9LqwifUEZTavX+TJd/dkLdDfTY7guazkaCzRnE6MX
8orZOe85+otypoko3HfKwz1U3oFuiOg0REawHSR3QC5sMKE+FoaQHVltSfwLBCZzpaoX
SJdRg/OQNWDV5h03pnAyiDnNsJPYGV9xQK2NtblaP2b17hMBlUjd/0EoI5CPsMtocgzb
8028IwomuimoM4ncqBLT5wDPAUzVxJTjF7I9TRrs43elbe5ge5waQlmJx2HmDDTmBPe1
id3g==
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:in-reply-to
:references:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding;
bh=wdU/nQqO550gP0Iz6qpPLVbh9irO817rF930swWJkQQ=;
b=UTjvFREqnhxXQA7NYf5XC8WCVYL6m6dAUEnOMkn1IPQgWHObaEgxU4VmRD84ZsEaVA
RybGML+Gjw2Pf17mWWq6SY5wGd/X7R/5g5s3KDUKXEvjbl3fgbt5RfVgWdS6pP3tRAOv
pVHPD8O5a3C+/c7Vyg4yLYJSaRpNw4yKTXh+Tu0bMl7blPqBQkXldQ7eWzOh9qpmpk3b
7xPxrm/dZA42FWRvGq9vjDUszfuy/gYWTtbjysZzqRPGXk4cdjDu+oER7Z+QCcYrAwgF
caOYEIvP2HC8NlKUd9He10Qq5rxDL3oPyit0HpyDLNixvQGFpSa310qiwRzhlWjg88WW
coLA==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAWq9tSzAWkpep8XbK5g+FNVSRwslNrZ9n5yU6Ep4vR77+8eLz4l
+fK43k6OKg+C16AVVD+yZmPDew==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqxDpG1u2ulVBZiNtLjaVliPragSypxQpa+MXDMqgdc/5m39mKdaoUWTtgUCFazYh6lmRMMN4A==
X-Received: by 2002:a63:ff65:: with SMTP id s37mr5305559pgk.331.1573671224347;
Wed, 13 Nov 2019 10:53:44 -0800 (PST)
Received: from shemminger-XPS-13-9360 (67-207-105-98.static.wiline.com.
[67.207.105.98])
by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id l62sm3679812pgl.24.2019.11.13.10.53.43
(version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256);
Wed, 13 Nov 2019 10:53:44 -0800 (PST)
Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2019 10:53:40 -0800
From: Stephen Hemminger <stephen@networkplumber.org>
To: Matan Azrad <matan@mellanox.com>
Cc: "dev@dpdk.org" <dev@dpdk.org>, Stephen Hemminger <sthemmin@microsoft.com>
Message-ID: <20191113105340.2928201a@shemminger-XPS-13-9360>
In-Reply-To: <AM0PR0502MB4019251196EE7400B4A82077D2D50@AM0PR0502MB4019.eurprd05.prod.outlook.com>
References: <20190726165054.24078-1-stephen@networkplumber.org>
<20190805163817.3713-1-stephen@networkplumber.org>
<20190805163817.3713-2-stephen@networkplumber.org>
<AM0PR0502MB4019251196EE7400B4A82077D2D50@AM0PR0502MB4019.eurprd05.prod.outlook.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v7 1/2]
examples/multi_process/client_server_mp: check port validity
X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions <dev.dpdk.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://mails.dpdk.org/options/dev>,
<mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://mails.dpdk.org/archives/dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:dev@dpdk.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://mails.dpdk.org/listinfo/dev>,
<mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org
Sender: "dev" <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>
On Tue, 6 Aug 2019 12:07:25 +0000
Matan Azrad <matan@mellanox.com> wrote:
> Hi
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: dev <dev-bounces@dpdk.org> On Behalf Of Stephen Hemminger
> > Sent: Monday, August 5, 2019 7:38 PM
> > To: dev@dpdk.org
> > Cc: Stephen Hemminger <sthemmin@microsoft.com>
> > Subject: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v7 1/2]
> > examples/multi_process/client_server_mp: check port validity
> >
> > From: Stephen Hemminger <sthemmin@microsoft.com>
> >
> > The mp_server incorrectly allows a port mask that included hidden ports and
> > which later caused either lost packets or failed initialization.
> >
> > This fixes explicitly checking that each bit in portmask is a valid port before
> > using it.
> >
> > Fixes: 5b7ba31148a8 ("ethdev: add port ownership")
> > Signed-off-by: Stephen Hemminger <sthemmin@microsoft.com>
> > ---
> > .../client_server_mp/mp_server/args.c | 40 ++++++++++---------
> > .../client_server_mp/mp_server/args.h | 2 +-
> > .../client_server_mp/mp_server/init.c | 7 +---
> > 3 files changed, 25 insertions(+), 24 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/examples/multi_process/client_server_mp/mp_server/args.c
> > b/examples/multi_process/client_server_mp/mp_server/args.c
> > index b0d8d7665c85..3c2ca266b096 100644
> > --- a/examples/multi_process/client_server_mp/mp_server/args.c
> > +++ b/examples/multi_process/client_server_mp/mp_server/args.c
> > @@ -10,6 +10,7 @@
> > #include <errno.h>
> >
> > #include <rte_memory.h>
> > +#include <rte_ethdev.h>
> > #include <rte_string_fns.h>
> >
> > #include "common.h"
> > @@ -41,31 +42,34 @@ usage(void)
> > * array variable
> > */
> > static int
> > -parse_portmask(uint8_t max_ports, const char *portmask)
> > +parse_portmask(const char *portmask)
> > {
> > char *end = NULL;
> > - unsigned long pm;
> > - uint16_t count = 0;
> > + unsigned long long pm;
> > + uint16_t id;
> >
> > if (portmask == NULL || *portmask == '\0')
> > return -1;
> >
> > /* convert parameter to a number and verify */
> > - pm = strtoul(portmask, &end, 16);
> > - if (end == NULL || *end != '\0' || pm == 0)
> > + errno = 0;
> > + pm = strtoull(portmask, &end, 16);
> > + if (errno != 0 || end == NULL || *end != '\0')
> > return -1;
> >
> Please Continue discussion on this on V5 thread.
The V5 thread degenerated into "applications should not use portmask".
That is a valid discussion but out of scope for this patch which is a bug
fix for users.