Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v5] eal: out-of-bounds write

["Mrozowicz, SlawomirX" <slawomirx.mrozowicz@intel.com>]

Hi Thomas,

As I understand Sergio suggested to come back to the solution similar to v1.
Could you comment or better take decision which solution should be applied, please.

Best Regards,
Sławomir 


>-----Original Message-----
>From: Gonzalez Monroy, Sergio
>Sent: Monday, June 20, 2016 1:29 PM
>To: Thomas Monjalon <thomas.monjalon@6wind.com>
>Cc: Mrozowicz, SlawomirX <slawomirx.mrozowicz@intel.com>;
>dev@dpdk.org; david.marchand@6wind.com
>Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v5] eal: out-of-bounds write
>
>On 20/06/2016 11:09, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
>> 2016-06-20 10:38, Sergio Gonzalez Monroy:
>>> 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.
>> I think it's saner to avoid mixing "potential root cause of a use
>> case" and "accurate description of the error".
>> One day, the root cause could be different and the message will become
>wrong.
>> Here there is not enough memory segment.
>>
>
>Right.
>So the whole point of doing the check before the loop was to display the error
>message with its specific cause.
>
>I would think that if the code changes and the message is not accurate then it
>should also be updated.
>
>So if folks prefer a more generic error message probably we don't need the
>check before the loop and just change the check condition inside the loop that
>would end up printing the generic error message (after the loop).
>
>Basically v1 would do that.
>http://dpdk.org/dev/patchwork/patch/12241/
>
>Sergio