From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mga03.intel.com (mga03.intel.com [134.134.136.65]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1B5843989 for ; Thu, 21 Jul 2016 14:01:20 +0200 (CEST) Received: from fmsmga001.fm.intel.com ([10.253.24.23]) by orsmga103.jf.intel.com with ESMTP; 21 Jul 2016 05:01:20 -0700 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.28,399,1464678000"; d="scan'208";a="1011199114" Received: from irsmsx152.ger.corp.intel.com ([163.33.192.66]) by fmsmga001.fm.intel.com with ESMTP; 21 Jul 2016 05:01:19 -0700 Received: from irsmsx103.ger.corp.intel.com ([169.254.3.204]) by IRSMSX152.ger.corp.intel.com ([169.254.6.247]) with mapi id 14.03.0248.002; Thu, 21 Jul 2016 13:01:18 +0100 From: "Mrozowicz, SlawomirX" To: "Gonzalez Monroy, Sergio" , "Thomas Monjalon" CC: "dev@dpdk.org" , "david.marchand@6wind.com" Thread-Topic: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v5] eal: out-of-bounds write Thread-Index: AQHRx9ZT+RfCwRdGg0GrISMtHXBVIp/yB+qAgAAGlYCAAAjZgIAAFiAAgDDQ0+A= Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2016 12:01:17 +0000 Message-ID: <158888A50F43E34AAE179517F56C97455CD010@IRSMSX103.ger.corp.intel.com> References: <1466088738-16990-1-git-send-email-slawomirx.mrozowicz@intel.com> <3354397.Tgjzuq1405@xps13> <5727542.OiCZAjWWDW@xps13> <93a9aba2-4fd0-ea57-18bc-b794ecb91b92@intel.com> In-Reply-To: <93a9aba2-4fd0-ea57-18bc-b794ecb91b92@intel.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [163.33.239.181] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-2" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 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 List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2016 12:01:21 -0000 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, S=B3awomir=20 >-----Original Message----- >From: Gonzalez Monroy, Sergio >Sent: Monday, June 20, 2016 1:29 PM >To: Thomas Monjalon >Cc: Mrozowicz, SlawomirX ; >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 e= rror >message with its specific cause. > >I would think that if the code changes and the message is not accurate the= n 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