From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <thomas@monjalon.net>
Received: from out2-smtp.messagingengine.com (out2-smtp.messagingengine.com
 [66.111.4.26]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F291DE5D
 for <stable@dpdk.org>; Mon, 30 Apr 2018 17:04:51 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from compute1.internal (compute1.nyi.internal [10.202.2.41])
 by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 268B221261;
 Mon, 30 Apr 2018 11:04:51 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from mailfrontend1 ([10.202.2.162])
 by compute1.internal (MEProxy); Mon, 30 Apr 2018 11:04:51 -0400
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=monjalon.net; h=
 cc:content-transfer-encoding:content-type:date:from:in-reply-to
 :message-id:mime-version:references:subject:to:x-me-sender
 :x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s=mesmtp; bh=Sr6xj83zqepEH9rzHCe1+5GxQE
 nlaoxfW5CgTr7Stps=; b=X4GznVK/nkhmOIuKbKDheBG1G7bqoTUzFW1JXs0XKN
 WBF1L5mToc35q38I1eMH7m6zh2RHm3wT2LWN5QChVJtnEtExuanacASCCoYyPDwh
 RsapTxS0qABxU5/wEd1KogjSWUnZm1I2Jzmzh0A+7VDh0QEhsbRFRpwxYE8xVpZa
 k=
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=
 messagingengine.com; h=cc:content-transfer-encoding:content-type
 :date:from:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references
 :subject:to:x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s=fm2; bh=Sr6xj8
 3zqepEH9rzHCe1+5GxQEnlaoxfW5CgTr7Stps=; b=OjMShpymmo7jRrjJ7X8lgO
 2Bc9dpETn03LuvENESDMtnEAsxPrOJX8lEvkI6z6q3/bGt1P2URfA7m7GDnK3akA
 UNeffS1LXE+lorV3m9oCpyXgDAT048IV3J86MsBwXXQfYZA20BANBC3H7noyraTt
 WYTdU185pmHrsLJ2SwlfIEuInO09ZlRNXdq6N283Gj4ABdecikC0o/tEkzXBiMPI
 wBLSvjbWryu0UxD0BcXi+AbjEgpaRChzsWIZmtSMrD6FJpNN+hVycYWLryIegcza
 fx4ws29mwkfJtezR9B2neaRcDG5lSFYP9DI923t1gl50UzWdBA1CreSOOESePceg
 ==
X-ME-Sender: <xms:kjDnWtU2I-OuKcg1zki3eWCN8Jfg3jdiQ5oWgqWlDYXqQonUhc1zcA>
Received: from xps.localnet (184.203.134.77.rev.sfr.net [77.134.203.184])
 by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 930DEE498D;
 Mon, 30 Apr 2018 11:04:50 -0400 (EDT)
From: Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net>
To: luca.boccassi@gmail.com
Cc: dpdk stable <stable@dpdk.org>
Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2018 17:04:49 +0200
Message-ID: <3107283.VSVKnoy58D@xps>
In-Reply-To: <20180430144223.18657-58-luca.boccassi@gmail.com>
References: <20180430140606.4615-80-luca.boccassi@gmail.com>
 <20180430144223.18657-1-luca.boccassi@gmail.com>
 <20180430144223.18657-58-luca.boccassi@gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Subject: Re: [dpdk-stable] patch 'fix ethdev port id validation' has been
	queued to stable release 18.02.2
X-BeenThere: stable@dpdk.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: patches for DPDK stable branches <stable.dpdk.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://dpdk.org/ml/options/stable>,
 <mailto:stable-request@dpdk.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/stable/>
List-Post: <mailto:stable@dpdk.org>
List-Help: <mailto:stable-request@dpdk.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://dpdk.org/ml/listinfo/stable>,
 <mailto:stable-request@dpdk.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2018 15:04:52 -0000

30/04/2018 16:41, luca.boccassi@gmail.com:
> Hi,
> 
> FYI, your patch has been queued to stable release 18.02.2
> 
> Note it hasn't been pushed to http://dpdk.org/browse/dpdk-stable yet.
> It will be pushed if I get no objections before 05/02/18. So please
> shout if anyone has objections.

I did not plan to backport it. But yes, it may be a good idead.
In this case, you need to backport some fixes on top of it:
	app/testpmd: fix build without i40e
	examples/flow_classify: fix validation in port init



> ---
> From 17bf70baba04313dc1ceef180f2f19da7f5ecad1 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> From: Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net>
> Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2018 17:33:21 +0200
> Subject: [PATCH] fix ethdev port id validation
> 
> [ upstream commit a9dbe180222680edf8c49e86791f972549ce5be3 ]
> 
> Some DPDK applications wrongly assume these requirements:
>     - no hotplug, i.e. ports are never detached
>     - all allocated ports are available to the application
> 
> Such application assume a valid port index is in the range [0..count[.
> 
> There are three consequences when using such wrong design:
>     - new ports having an index higher than the port count won't be valid
>     - old ports being detached (RTE_ETH_DEV_UNUSED) can be valid
> 
> Such mistake will be less common with growing hotplug awareness.
> All applications and examples inside this repository - except testpmd -
> must be fixed to use the function rte_eth_dev_is_valid_port.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net>