From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mails.dpdk.org (mails.dpdk.org [217.70.189.124]) by inbox.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E9432A0545; Tue, 21 Jun 2022 15:31:06 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [217.70.189.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9A5714069C; Tue, 21 Jun 2022 15:31:06 +0200 (CEST) Received: from mga18.intel.com (mga18.intel.com [134.134.136.126]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5EABE40151; Tue, 21 Jun 2022 15:31:05 +0200 (CEST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=intel.com; i=@intel.com; q=dns/txt; s=Intel; t=1655818265; x=1687354265; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:in-reply-to: references:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=ZXaNjFPw9cu6acKc/p6VJm9V/FdzDRcZCGlznfQPq4s=; b=EPjkjwjs/6hggTrl4EPh5JZU5br1bvSeHIIe8/+A/ua9E0MlOjb1FLzh DJXNsmQT7aXWrS/zLnBojagMslzQvKmWobtxXFbETEmOsuvvAbihE7Nak M+AoXHjW6gE5RozovgjFku5lr/NfPx7fHRSW93o45qNJqm9gJL6b8ySHH WRrWJyFHgqhFSVV6oFi1FTJhGhs0oIakxeFQLruz5UZRyxEewaOJxb+FA DtSpiZ92fH4SUnObV387bLHMNB+Veii2HS0E8rYRrYke7uYti35WDbRVx SF9scg8hKWi7LVEK1IJBoHhm+z2Q1rCikPPzZvJVYVqSIH8MAXx4DPUxF A==; X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="6400,9594,10384"; a="263151018" X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.92,209,1650956400"; d="scan'208";a="263151018" Received: from orsmga007.jf.intel.com ([10.7.209.58]) by orsmga106.jf.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 21 Jun 2022 06:31:04 -0700 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.92,209,1650956400"; d="scan'208";a="585281637" Received: from silpixa00400072.ir.intel.com (HELO silpixa00400072.ger.corp.intel.com) ([10.237.222.91]) by orsmga007.jf.intel.com with ESMTP; 21 Jun 2022 06:31:03 -0700 From: Vladimir Medvedkin To: dev@dpdk.org Cc: gakhil@marvell.com, stable@dpdk.org, Konstantin Ananyev , Bernard Iremonger Subject: [PATCH v2] test/ipsec: fix performance test failure Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2022 13:30:45 +0000 Message-Id: <20220621133046.2827485-1-vladimir.medvedkin@intel.com> X-Mailer: git-send-email 2.25.1 In-Reply-To: <20220617171842.2788040-1-vladimir.medvedkin@intel.com> References: <20220617171842.2788040-1-vladimir.medvedkin@intel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org This patch initializes with 0 rte_ipsec_sa_prm inside the ipsec_sa struct. Before it was passed uninitialized to rte_ipsec_sa_init(), which does not check whether prm->ipsec_xform.esn.value is greater than sa->sqn_mask. Bugzilla ID: 1023 Fixes: f7f3ac6dcbe2 ("test/ipsec: add performance cases") Cc: stable@dpdk.org Signed-off-by: Vladimir Medvedkin --- Notes: v2: - fix gcc4 warnings app/test/test_ipsec_perf.c | 4 ++-- 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) diff --git a/app/test/test_ipsec_perf.c b/app/test/test_ipsec_perf.c index 346a851648..11de9a6aac 100644 --- a/app/test/test_ipsec_perf.c +++ b/app/test/test_ipsec_perf.c @@ -592,8 +592,8 @@ testsuite_teardown(void) static int test_libipsec_perf(void) { - struct ipsec_sa sa_out; - struct ipsec_sa sa_in; + struct ipsec_sa sa_out = { .sa_prm = { 0 } }; + struct ipsec_sa sa_in = { .sa_prm = { 0 } }; uint32_t i; int ret; -- 2.25.1