Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2] cryptodev: fix check related to device id

["Meunier, Julien (Nokia - FR/Paris-Saclay)" <julien.meunier@nokia.com>]

Hi,

Inline reply

On 16/10/2019 09:02, Akhil Goyal wrote:
> Hi Julien,
> 
> A couple of nits. Please see inline.
> 
> Apart from that
> Acked-by: Akhil Goyal <akhil.goyal@nxp.com>
> 
>>
>> Each cryptodev are indexed with dev_id in the global rte_crypto_devices
>> variable. nb_devs is incremented / decremented each time a cryptodev is
>> created / deleted. The goal of nb_devs was to prevent the user to get an
>> invalid dev_id.
>>
>> Let's imagine DPDK has configured N cryptodevs. If the cryptodev=1 is
>> removed at runtime, the latest cryptodev N cannot be accessible, because
>> nb_devs=N-1 with the current implementaion.
>>
>> In order to prevent this kind of behavior, let's remove the check with
>> nb_devs and iterate in all the rte_crypto_devices elements: if data is
>> not NULL, that means a valid cryptodev is available.
>>
>> Also, remove max_devs field and use RTE_CRYPTO_MAX_DEVS in order to
>> unify the code.
>>
>> Fixes: d11b0f30df88 ("cryptodev: introduce API and framework for crypto
>> devices")
>> Cc: stable@dpdk.org
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Julien Meunier <julien.meunier@nokia.com>
>> ---
>> v2:
>> * Restore nb_devs
>> * Update headline (check-git-log.sh)
>> * Update commit log
>>
>>   lib/librte_cryptodev/rte_cryptodev.c | 30 +++++++++++++++++++++---------
>>   1 file changed, 21 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/lib/librte_cryptodev/rte_cryptodev.c
>> b/lib/librte_cryptodev/rte_cryptodev.c
>> index b16ef7b..933c38d 100644
>> --- a/lib/librte_cryptodev/rte_cryptodev.c
>> +++ b/lib/librte_cryptodev/rte_cryptodev.c
>> @@ -50,8 +50,7 @@
>>   static struct rte_cryptodev_global cryptodev_globals = {
>> 		.devs			= rte_crypto_devices,
>>   		.data			= { NULL },
>> -		.nb_devs		= 0,
>> -		.max_devs		= RTE_CRYPTO_MAX_DEVS
>> +		.nb_devs		= 0
>>   };
> 
> Max_devs field shall also be removed from struct rte_cryptodev_global in "lib/librte_cryptodev/rte_cryptodev_pmd.h"

Oops, yes, I didn't clean-up all the code :) I will do that.


>>
>>   /* spinlock for crypto device callbacks */
>> @@ -512,7 +511,7 @@ struct rte_cryptodev *
>>   	if (name == NULL)
>>   		return NULL;
>>
>> -	for (i = 0; i < cryptodev_globals.max_devs; i++) {
>> +	for (i = 0; i < RTE_CRYPTO_MAX_DEVS; i++) {
>>   		dev = &cryptodev_globals.devs[i];
>>
>>   		if ((dev->attached == RTE_CRYPTODEV_ATTACHED) &&
>> @@ -523,12 +522,21 @@ struct rte_cryptodev *
>>   	return NULL;
>>   }
>>
>> +static uint8_t
>> +rte_cryptodev_is_valid_device_data(uint8_t dev_id)
>> +{
>> +	if (rte_crypto_devices[dev_id].data == NULL)
>> +		return 0;
>> +
>> +	return 1;
>> +}
> 
> rte_cryptodev_is_valid_device_data should be a static inline function.

OK.

> 
>> +
>>   unsigned int
>>   rte_cryptodev_pmd_is_valid_dev(uint8_t dev_id)
>>   {
>>   	struct rte_cryptodev *dev = NULL;
>>
>> -	if (dev_id >= cryptodev_globals.nb_devs)
>> +	if (!rte_cryptodev_is_valid_device_data(dev_id))
>>   		return 0;
>>
>>   	dev = rte_cryptodev_pmd_get_dev(dev_id);
>> @@ -547,12 +555,15 @@ struct rte_cryptodev *
>>   	if (name == NULL)
>>   		return -1;
>>
>> -	for (i = 0; i < cryptodev_globals.nb_devs; i++)
>> +	for (i = 0; i < RTE_CRYPTO_MAX_DEVS; i++) {
>> +		if (!rte_cryptodev_is_valid_device_data(i))
>> +			continue;
>>   		if ((strcmp(cryptodev_globals.devs[i].data->name, name)
>>   				== 0) &&
>>   				(cryptodev_globals.devs[i].attached ==
>>   						RTE_CRYPTODEV_ATTACHED))
>>   			return i;
>> +	}
>>
>>   	return -1;
>>   }
>> @@ -568,7 +579,7 @@ struct rte_cryptodev *
>>   {
>>   	uint8_t i, dev_count = 0;
>>
>> -	for (i = 0; i < cryptodev_globals.max_devs; i++)
>> +	for (i = 0; i < RTE_CRYPTO_MAX_DEVS; i++)
>>   		if (cryptodev_globals.devs[i].driver_id == driver_id &&
>>   			cryptodev_globals.devs[i].attached ==
>>   					RTE_CRYPTODEV_ATTACHED)
>> @@ -583,9 +594,10 @@ struct rte_cryptodev *
>>   {
>>   	uint8_t i, count = 0;
>>   	struct rte_cryptodev *devs = cryptodev_globals.devs;
>> -	uint8_t max_devs = cryptodev_globals.max_devs;
>>
>> -	for (i = 0; i < max_devs && count < nb_devices;	i++) {
>> +	for (i = 0; i < RTE_CRYPTO_MAX_DEVS && count < nb_devices; i++) {
>> +		if (!rte_cryptodev_is_valid_device_data(i))
>> +			continue;
>>
>>   		if (devs[i].attached == RTE_CRYPTODEV_ATTACHED) {
>>   			int cmp;
>> @@ -1101,7 +1113,7 @@ struct rte_cryptodev *
>>   {
>>   	struct rte_cryptodev *dev;
>>
>> -	if (dev_id >= cryptodev_globals.nb_devs) {
>> +	if (!rte_cryptodev_pmd_is_valid_dev(dev_id)) {
>>   		CDEV_LOG_ERR("Invalid dev_id=%d", dev_id);
>>   		return;
>>   	}
>> --
>> 1.8.3.1
> 

Thanks,
-- 
Julien Meunier