From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from dpdk.org (dpdk.org [92.243.14.124]) by inbox.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A9C60A046B for ; Mon, 22 Jul 2019 11:25:44 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [92.243.14.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 82A711BEDB; Mon, 22 Jul 2019 11:25:44 +0200 (CEST) Received: from mga14.intel.com (mga14.intel.com [192.55.52.115]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BF95B1BE9D; Mon, 22 Jul 2019 11:25:42 +0200 (CEST) X-Amp-Result: SKIPPED(no attachment in message) X-Amp-File-Uploaded: False Received: from fmsmga006.fm.intel.com ([10.253.24.20]) by fmsmga103.fm.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 22 Jul 2019 02:25:41 -0700 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.64,294,1559545200"; d="scan'208";a="368459626" Received: from aburakov-mobl1.ger.corp.intel.com (HELO [10.237.220.83]) ([10.237.220.83]) by fmsmga006.fm.intel.com with ESMTP; 22 Jul 2019 02:25:40 -0700 To: Yasufumi Ogawa , david.marchand@redhat.com Cc: dev@dpdk.org, stable@dpdk.org, Yasufumi Ogawa References: <1555379952-23517-1-git-send-email-ogawa.yasufumi@lab.ntt.co.jp> <20190711103148.9187-1-yasufum.o@gmail.com> <20190711103148.9187-2-yasufum.o@gmail.com> <99d2853d-f6f9-59f2-f853-0f9222e8cb5d@gmail.com> From: "Burakov, Anatoly" Message-ID: Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2019 10:25:39 +0100 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.8.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <99d2853d-f6f9-59f2-f853-0f9222e8cb5d@gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3 1/1] fbarray: get fbarrays from containerized secondary 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: , Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org Sender: "dev" On 12-Jul-19 3:22 AM, Yasufumi Ogawa wrote: > On 2019/07/11 22:14, Burakov, Anatoly wrote: >> On 11-Jul-19 12:57 PM, Yasufumi Ogawa wrote: >>> On 2019/07/11 19:53, Burakov, Anatoly wrote: >>>> On 11-Jul-19 11:31 AM, yasufum.o@gmail.com wrote: >>>>> From: Yasufumi Ogawa >>>>> >>>> <...> >>>> >>>>> +    if (getpid() == 1) { >>>>> +        FILE *hn_fp; >>>>> +        hn_fp = fopen("/etc/hostname", "r"); >>>>> +        if (hn_fp == NULL) { >>>>> +            RTE_LOG(ERR, EAL, >>>>> +                "Cannot open '/etc/hostname' for secondary\n"); >>>>> +            return -1; >>>>> +        } >>>>> + >>>>> +        /* with docker, /etc/hostname just has one entry of >>>>> hostname */ >>>>> +        if (fscanf(hn_fp, "%s", proc_id) == EOF) { >>>> >>>> Apologies for not pointing this out earlier, but do i understand >>>> correctly that there's no bounds checking here, and fscanf() will >>>> write however many bytes it wants? >>> I understand "%s" is not appropriate. hostname is 12 bytes char and I >>> thought proc_id[16] is enough, but it is unsafe. In addition, >>> hostname can be defined by user with docker's option, so it should be >>> enough for user defined name. >>> >>> How do you think expecting max 32 chars of hostname and set boundary >>> "%32s" as following? >>> >>>      proc_id[33];  /* define proc id from hostname less than 33 >>> bytes. */ >>>      ... >>>      if (fscanf(hn_fp, "%32s", proc_id) == EOF) { >>> >> >> As long as it takes NULL-termination into account as well, it should >> be OK. I can't recall off the top of my head if %32s includes NULL >> terminator (probably not?). > Do you agree if initialize with NULL chars to ensure proc_id is > NULL-terminated? As tested on my environment, "%Ns" sets next of Nth > char as NULL, but it seems more reliable. >     proc_id[33] = { 0 }; > > Yasufumi > Yes, that should be OK. -- Thanks, Anatoly