From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mails.dpdk.org (mails.dpdk.org [217.70.189.124]) by inbox.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 615E442809; Wed, 22 Mar 2023 14:49:55 +0100 (CET) Received: from mails.dpdk.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F22A040E09; Wed, 22 Mar 2023 14:49:54 +0100 (CET) Received: from wout4-smtp.messagingengine.com (wout4-smtp.messagingengine.com [64.147.123.20]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id ABEAF40A84 for ; Wed, 22 Mar 2023 14:49:53 +0100 (CET) Received: from compute3.internal (compute3.nyi.internal [10.202.2.43]) by mailout.west.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 22E473200B66; Wed, 22 Mar 2023 09:49:51 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mailfrontend2 ([10.202.2.163]) by compute3.internal (MEProxy); Wed, 22 Mar 2023 09:49:51 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=monjalon.net; h= cc:cc:content-transfer-encoding:content-type:content-type:date :date:from:from:in-reply-to:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :references:reply-to:sender:subject:subject:to:to; s=fm2; t= 1679492990; x=1679579390; bh=D2aBZCaoJ045oTBRj03FrwzKSiTziFTZyKd PMhcLm5Q=; b=JDj4iYKOIk+EmPYCTmwLVl7KBb7/aa1DeRiQdfOiqOzZmJP75zR m+0X7vuSVxh5vjEay6jX65rRqoaTOuNDnckT/2Ka56IMMEWLscIJGth/Z998DeIN bgw+z67M1vNWgnzQy8BBZpEvKqpfHcf044GGwRadK8FxmDCFW9hZwuM+QbyTkMQp 9EBk6/YWr72UhIJl1NwnT3KEMCy9agJVOKAjwjQ6kvRAhLRI/hA5zvC/u/aHSC1u rfunLU3XAJ3vI9QmN4x1Tn8BdSnlUdJP7JiixcYZ9Wl/HwrD4HoIGU4BOcDz74oJ TuoX67mPmuQ8aGadXHyU1gkAsnS3xSnO2xA== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:cc:content-transfer-encoding :content-type:content-type:date:date:feedback-id:feedback-id :from:from:in-reply-to:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :references:reply-to:sender:subject:subject:to:to:x-me-proxy :x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s=fm2; t= 1679492990; x=1679579390; bh=D2aBZCaoJ045oTBRj03FrwzKSiTziFTZyKd PMhcLm5Q=; b=IAoXsGT0jJBASbrDO/ibehB7KDRBwJA7xtGTHVrvI5rpbF7U+D9 TNiw53LTyReUkVVA8fucsHf0ttfwVjNY5Ijsa54VmxMKUzzjbcomjN+G9DhMC1Fu MosuVbOLDHdT7MnDkJ1zxeHU4+vVQTRWo+qmbJLb9vluTSwU5ZHW6HXPj6KRsefL qjHXMzuuhW7B2s56F2a30XTTbp1DJYRFMyoJ7SQLHfRJmGm/igFtcJZ9GW1RiYwl a6MNBMDKV/zZUOSK6FO4s+mlrXD/ZBiviv4Zc2NE9jK3LhjhVsxFjoXNkwdItcRe LHeF1ci0kTuJgl22OnpqpN22/yFJXAPgKAw== X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Received: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgedvhedrvdegvddgheekucetufdoteggodetrfdotf fvucfrrhhofhhilhgvmecuhfgrshhtofgrihhlpdfqfgfvpdfurfetoffkrfgpnffqhgen uceurghilhhouhhtmecufedttdenucesvcftvggtihhpihgvnhhtshculddquddttddmne cujfgurhephffvvefufffkjghfggfgtgesthfuredttddtvdenucfhrhhomhepvfhhohhm rghsucfoohhnjhgrlhhonhcuoehthhhomhgrshesmhhonhhjrghlohhnrdhnvghtqeenuc ggtffrrghtthgvrhhnpedtjeeiieefhedtfffgvdelteeufeefheeujefgueetfedttdei kefgkeduhedtgfenucevlhhushhtvghrufhiiigvpedtnecurfgrrhgrmhepmhgrihhlfh hrohhmpehthhhomhgrshesmhhonhhjrghlohhnrdhnvght X-ME-Proxy: Feedback-ID: i47234305:Fastmail Received: by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA; Wed, 22 Mar 2023 09:49:49 -0400 (EDT) From: Thomas Monjalon To: fengchengwen , Olivier Matz , Ferruh Yigit Cc: dev@dpdk.org, David Marchand Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/5] fix segment fault when parse args Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2023 14:49:47 +0100 Message-ID: <5169242.6fTUFtlzNn@thomas> In-Reply-To: <6e6b0618-3f36-1832-19a2-9dcadd62de9b@amd.com> References: <20230314124813.39521-1-fengchengwen@huawei.com> <6e6b0618-3f36-1832-19a2-9dcadd62de9b@amd.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org 22/03/2023 09:53, Ferruh Yigit: > On 3/22/2023 1:15 AM, fengchengwen wrote: > > On 2023/3/21 21:50, Ferruh Yigit wrote: > >> On 3/17/2023 2:43 AM, fengchengwen wrote: > >>> On 2023/3/17 2:18, Ferruh Yigit wrote: > >>>> On 3/14/2023 12:48 PM, Chengwen Feng wrote: > >>>>> The rte_kvargs_process() was used to parse KV pairs, it also supports > >>>>> to parse 'only keys' (e.g. socket_id) type. And the callback function > >>>>> parameter 'value' is NULL when parsed 'only keys'. > >>>>> > >>>>> It may leads to segment fault when parse args with 'only key', this > >>>>> patchset fixes rest of them. > >>>>> > >>>>> Chengwen Feng (5): > >>>>> app/pdump: fix segment fault when parse args > >>>>> net/memif: fix segment fault when parse devargs > >>>>> net/pcap: fix segment fault when parse devargs > >>>>> net/ring: fix segment fault when parse devargs > >>>>> net/sfc: fix segment fault when parse devargs > >>>> > >>>> Hi Chengwen, > >>>> > >>>> Did you scan all `rte_kvargs_process()` instances? > >>> > >>> No, I was just looking at the modules I was concerned about. > >>> I looked at it briefly, and some modules had the same problem. > >>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> And if there would be a way to tell kvargs that a value is expected (or > >>>> not) this checks could be done in kvargs layer, I think this also can be > >>>> to look at. > >>> > >>> Yes, the way to tell kvargs may lead to a lot of modifys and also break ABI. > >>> I also think about just set value = "" when only exist key, It could perfectly solve the above segment scene. > >>> But it also break the API's behavior. > >>> > >> > >> What about having a new API, like `rte_kvargs_process_extended()`, > >> > >> That gets an additional flag as parameter, which may have values like > >> following to indicate if key expects a value or not: > >> ARG_MAY_HAVE_VALUE --> "key=value" OR 'key' > >> ARG_WITH_VALUE --> "key=value" > >> ARG_NO_VALUE --> 'key' > >> > >> Default flag can be 'ARG_MAY_HAVE_VALUE' and it becomes same as > >> `rte_kvargs_process()`. > >> > >> This way instead of adding checks, relevant usage can be replaced by > >> `rte_kvargs_process_extended()`, this requires similar amount of change > >> but code will be more clean I think. > >> > >> Do you think does this work? > > > > Yes, it can work. > > > > But I think the introduction of new API adds some complexity. > > And a good API definition could more simpler. > > > > Other option is changing existing API, but that may be widely used and > changing it impacts applications, I don't think it worth. I've planned a change in kvargs API 5 years ago and never did it: >From doc/guides/rel_notes/deprecation.rst: " * kvargs: The function ``rte_kvargs_process`` will get a new parameter for returning key match count. It will ease handling of no-match case. " > Of course we can live with as it is and add checks to the callback > functions, although I still believe a new 'process()' API is better idea.