Re: [spp] [PATCH] spp_vf: fix unexpected count up for bad request

[Yasufumi Ogawa <ogawa.yasufumi@lab.ntt.co.jp>]

> From: Hideyuki Yamashita <yamashita.hideyuki@po.ntt-tx.co.jp>
> 
> The num of ports is counted up while port is not added actually if it
> is already reached to the defiend muximum number. This patch is to fix
> the issue by rejecting the count up.
Applied, thanks.

> 
> Signed-off-by: Hideyuki Yamashita <yamashita.hideyuki@po.ntt-tx.co.jp>
> Signed-off-by: Naoki Takada <takada.naoki@lab.ntt.co.jp>
> ---
>   src/vf/common/command_proc.c | 56 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
>   1 file changed, 55 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/src/vf/common/command_proc.c b/src/vf/common/command_proc.c
> index 0f99827..415a638 100644
> --- a/src/vf/common/command_proc.c
> +++ b/src/vf/common/command_proc.c
> @@ -321,7 +321,55 @@ spp_update_component(
>   	return ret;
>   }
>   
> +/* Check if over the maximum num of rx and tx ports of component. */
> +static int
> +check_port_count(int component_type, enum spp_port_rxtx rxtx, int num_rx,
> +								int num_tx)
> +{
> +	RTE_LOG(INFO, SPP_COMMAND_PROC, "port count, port_type=%d,"
> +				" rx=%d, tx=%d\n", rxtx, num_rx, num_tx);
> +	if (rxtx == SPP_PORT_RXTX_RX)
> +		num_rx++;
> +	else
> +		num_tx++;
> +	/* Add rx or tx port appointed in port_type. */
> +	RTE_LOG(INFO, SPP_COMMAND_PROC, "Num of ports after count up,"
> +				" port_type=%d, rx=%d, tx=%d\n",
> +				rxtx, num_rx, num_tx);
> +	switch (component_type) {
> +	case SPP_COMPONENT_FORWARD:
> +		if (num_rx > 1 || num_tx > 1)
> +			return SPP_RET_NG;
> +		break;
> +
> +	case SPP_COMPONENT_MERGE:
> +		if (num_tx > 1)
> +			return SPP_RET_NG;
> +		break;
> +
> +	case SPP_COMPONENT_CLASSIFIER_MAC:
> +		if (num_rx > 1)
> +			return SPP_RET_NG;
> +		break;
> +
> +	case SPP_COMPONENT_MIRROR:
> +		if (num_rx > 1 || num_tx > 2)
> +			return SPP_RET_NG;
> +		break;
> +
> +	default:
> +		/* Illegal component type. */
> +		return SPP_RET_NG;
> +	}
> +
> +	return SPP_RET_OK;
> +}
> +
>   /* Port add or del to execute it */
> +/**
> + * TODO(Ogasawara) The name `action` should be revised to be more
> + * appropriate one.
> + */
>   static int
>   spp_update_port(enum spp_command_action action,
>   		const struct spp_port_index *port,
> @@ -361,8 +409,14 @@ spp_update_port(enum spp_command_action action,
>   
>   	switch (action) {
>   	case SPP_CMD_ACTION_ADD:
> +		/* Check if over the maximum num of ports of component. */
> +		if (check_port_count(comp_info->type, rxtx,
> +				comp_info->num_rx_port,
> +				comp_info->num_tx_port) != SPP_RET_OK)
> +			return SPP_RET_NG;
> +
>   		ret_check = check_port_element(port_info, *num, ports);
> -		/* registered check */
> +		/* Check whether a port has been already registered. */
>   		if (ret_check >= SPP_RET_OK) {
>   			/* registered */
>   			if (ability->ope == SPP_PORT_ABILITY_OPE_ADD_VLANTAG) {
> 


-- 
Yasufumi Ogawa
NTT Network Service Systems Labs