From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <sergio.gonzalez.monroy@intel.com>
Received: from mga01.intel.com (mga01.intel.com [192.55.52.88])
 by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2E83E95D7
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Mon, 20 Jun 2016 11:38:19 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from orsmga002.jf.intel.com ([10.7.209.21])
 by fmsmga101.fm.intel.com with ESMTP; 20 Jun 2016 02:38:17 -0700
X-ExtLoop1: 1
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.26,497,1459839600"; d="scan'208";a="1001424835"
Received: from smonroyx-mobl.ger.corp.intel.com (HELO [10.237.221.32])
 ([10.237.221.32])
 by orsmga002.jf.intel.com with ESMTP; 20 Jun 2016 02:38:15 -0700
To: Thomas Monjalon <thomas.monjalon@6wind.com>,
 Slawomir Mrozowicz <slawomirx.mrozowicz@intel.com>
References: <1466088738-16990-1-git-send-email-slawomirx.mrozowicz@intel.com>
 <3354397.Tgjzuq1405@xps13>
Cc: dev@dpdk.org, david.marchand@6wind.com
From: Sergio Gonzalez Monroy <sergio.gonzalez.monroy@intel.com>
Message-ID: <d5fc0e16-95c2-70b6-9aee-5232d85e4c5e@intel.com>
Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2016 10:38:15 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.3; WOW64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/45.1.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <3354397.Tgjzuq1405@xps13>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v5] eal: out-of-bounds write
X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: patches and discussions about DPDK <dev.dpdk.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://dpdk.org/ml/options/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:dev@dpdk.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://dpdk.org/ml/listinfo/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2016 09:38:19 -0000

On 20/06/2016 10:14, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
>> +		RTE_LOG(ERR, EAL,
>> +			"All memory segments exhausted by IVSHMEM. "
> There is no evidence that it is related to IVSHMEM.
> "Not enough memory segments." would be more appropriate.

Actually we would hit this issue when all memsegs have been used by IVSHMEM.
So I think the message is accurate.

Am I missing something?

Sergio