From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <nhorman@tuxdriver.com>
Received: from smtp.tuxdriver.com (charlotte.tuxdriver.com [70.61.120.58])
 by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9C0E568AA
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Wed,  1 Oct 2014 16:55:57 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from nat-pool-rdu-u.redhat.com ([66.187.233.203] helo=localhost)
 by smtp.tuxdriver.com with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES128-SHA:128) (Exim 4.63)
 (envelope-from <nhorman@tuxdriver.com>)
 id 1XZLQG-0000pt-Ui; Wed, 01 Oct 2014 11:02:38 -0400
Date: Wed, 1 Oct 2014 11:02:27 -0400
From: Neil Horman <nhorman@tuxdriver.com>
To: Thomas Monjalon <thomas.monjalon@6wind.com>
Message-ID: <20141001150227.GC24028@localhost.localdomain>
References: <DAE811FA-C1F1-444D-980C-311BCCE7FF3C@windriver.com>
 <05E7C1C5-2730-4BE3-B808-6F69821F7898@windriver.com>
 <20140928122706.GB30445@localhost.localdomain>
 <8437457.lrG762lvxy@xps13>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <8437457.lrG762lvxy@xps13>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12)
X-Spam-Score: -2.9 (--)
X-Spam-Status: No
Cc: dev@dpdk.org
Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2] rte_mempool_dump() crashes with NULL
 rte_mempool	pointer.
X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: patches and discussions about DPDK <dev.dpdk.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://dpdk.org/ml/options/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:dev@dpdk.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://dpdk.org/ml/listinfo/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 01 Oct 2014 14:55:58 -0000

On Wed, Oct 01, 2014 at 03:36:45PM +0200, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> 2014-09-28 08:27, Neil Horman:
> > On Sun, Sep 28, 2014 at 05:28:44AM +0000, Wiles, Roger Keith wrote:
> > > Check the FILE *f and rte_mempool *mp pointers for NULL and
> > > return plus print out a message if RTE_LIBRTE_MEMPOOL_DEBUG is enabled.
> > > 
> > > Signed-off-by: Keith Wiles <keith.wiles@windriver.com>
> > 
> > I'm fine with this, as I think passing in a NULL mempool is clearly a bug here,
> > thats worth panicing over, though I wouldnt mind if we did a RTE_VERIFY_WARN
> > macro here instead using what I suggested in my other note
> 
> Passing a NULL mempool to rte_mempool_dump() is a bug in the application.
> If you look elsewhere in the DPDK code, you'll see that it's not common to do
> such check on input parameters.
> A similar discussion already happened few months ago:
> 	http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/2014-June/003900.html
> 
Not sure what your point is here Thomas.  I think we're all in agreement that
NULL is a bad value to pass in here.  Are you asserting that we shouldn't bother
with a NULL check at all and just accept the crash as it is?

Neil

> -- 
> Thomas
>