From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from dpdk.org (dpdk.org [92.243.14.124]) by dpdk.space (Postfix) with ESMTP id ED1ACA05D3 for ; Tue, 23 Apr 2019 10:33:41 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [92.243.14.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id ABC1F1B4DC; Tue, 23 Apr 2019 10:33:41 +0200 (CEST) Received: from wout4-smtp.messagingengine.com (wout4-smtp.messagingengine.com [64.147.123.20]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A988B1B4CA; Tue, 23 Apr 2019 10:33:36 +0200 (CEST) Received: from compute1.internal (compute1.nyi.internal [10.202.2.41]) by mailout.west.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8CDCC35A; Tue, 23 Apr 2019 04:33:35 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mailfrontend2 ([10.202.2.163]) by compute1.internal (MEProxy); Tue, 23 Apr 2019 04:33:35 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=monjalon.net; h= from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:content-transfer-encoding:content-type; s=mesmtp; bh=BVtFhSnCh/40dEh5jsPrqvtXqBXJCAaTvmFJbUxf6U4=; b=FecCU8MwJT68 XxXeMXwVzGHR4yuqIQwxkuPkul97B+MALxAGTwnUphHgD4DO/NlAwN3n1/Q0MZWE sRtGGNA8S9Us2fpVYOQhs7cwDcSG3i+Wx2GnPmrurNMt6Pq0Fe9MVUdPwGKdjf6D Tn04xXy2HTAWfuiQ4E0Sn9SAzv3wsuE= 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-proxy:x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender :x-sasl-enc; s=fm2; bh=BVtFhSnCh/40dEh5jsPrqvtXqBXJCAaTvmFJbUxf6 U4=; b=HMtc0Pl++2IMBXliFKV+pwnDQlMU9fX5hat6jEhgPBSiQlyuwNCkVmVXB Z7t5rCIPUNWi1JkTk/rNONrI4DQ2Ti9DwD7cwhGDQRq+EQf4C8ifw+/5scPpeO2t eeP8jo3J2rQmKtgJh+mP6yxelIPA7jCWdiDIrV2ebpiLMubOaoKDiGdbuHwmpVEn j3c+7aMBhk2KGyB+PFP2z3u+OCGLsVebk//n9tNLtmATCFAS9G8cA7tC14eUJI92 Wag5WAt8pEq7Ho70RYMKM/1CH9XiDZY7KL7WIo6WhkixsvMUP56zPd8S7SrrAZOY fpjgY4P7B1hiIcKhiYSom2kjXhV1A== X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgeduuddrgeekgddtgecutefuodetggdotefrodftvf curfhrohhfihhlvgemucfhrghsthforghilhdpqfgfvfdpuffrtefokffrpgfnqfghnecu uegrihhlohhuthemuceftddtnecusecvtfgvtghiphhivghnthhsucdlqddutddtmdenuc fjughrpefhvffufffkjghfggfgtgesthfuredttddtvdenucfhrhhomhepvfhhohhmrghs ucfoohhnjhgrlhhonhcuoehthhhomhgrshesmhhonhhjrghlohhnrdhnvghtqeenucfkph epkeefrdduudehrdduheehrddufeeknecurfgrrhgrmhepmhgrihhlfhhrohhmpehthhho mhgrshesmhhonhhjrghlohhnrdhnvghtnecuvehluhhsthgvrhfuihiivgeptd X-ME-Proxy: Received: from xps.localnet (acaen-257-1-30-138.w83-115.abo.wanadoo.fr [83.115.155.138]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 25E66103CB; Tue, 23 Apr 2019 04:33:32 -0400 (EDT) From: Thomas Monjalon To: "Hunt, David" Cc: dev@dpdk.org, stable@dpdk.org Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2019 10:33:30 +0200 Message-ID: <6104972.Lu9iTUo70n@xps> In-Reply-To: <92c0a8fa-f05b-827b-a34b-5e403dd3177d@intel.com> References: <20190410124910.24537-1-david.hunt@intel.com> <2785627.VT4d78UdPe@xps> <92c0a8fa-f05b-827b-a34b-5e403dd3177d@intel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: [dpdk-stable] [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v1] examples/vm_power_manager: fix buffer overrun X-BeenThere: stable@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: patches for DPDK stable branches List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: stable-bounces@dpdk.org Sender: "stable" 23/04/2019 10:21, Hunt, David: > Hi Thomas, > > On 22/4/2019 10:54 PM, Thomas Monjalon wrote: > > 10/04/2019 14:49, David Hunt: > >> The freqs array in freq_info struct has RTE_MAX_LCORE_FREQS elements, > >> yet the code can attemtp to look at the index at POWER_MANAGER_MAX_CPUS, > >> which may be greater than RTE_MAX_LCORE_FREQS. Fix to limit index to > >> RTE_MAX_LCORE_FREQS. > >> > >> Fixes: d26c18c93260 ("examples/vm_power: cpu frequency in host") > >> Coverity issue: 337660 > >> > >> Signed-off-by: David Hunt > > It seems to have been fixed in another patch, isn't it? > > > > It was not fixed in another patch, although I can see the confusion. > > A previous patch made the #defines more consistent, and > POWER_MGR_MAX_CPUS was changed to RTE_MAX_LCORE on the affected line. > However, this was later revealed as a coverity issue, and was fixed in > this patch to be RTE_LCORE_MAX_FREQS, which is the size of the array > it's trying to index into. > > So looking at RC2, this patch is still needed. I think it needs to be rebased in a v2 then.