Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 2/2] examples/ipsec-secgw: fix portmask option parsing

["Ananyev, Konstantin" <konstantin.ananyev@intel.com>]

Hi Akhil,

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Akhil Goyal [mailto:akhil.goyal@nxp.com]
> Sent: Thursday, June 21, 2018 2:49 PM
> To: Ananyev, Konstantin <konstantin.ananyev@intel.com>; dev@dpdk.org
> Cc: Nicolau, Radu <radu.nicolau@intel.com>
> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 2/2] examples/ipsec-secgw: fix portmask option parsing
> 
> Hi Konstantin,
> 
> On 6/5/2018 7:46 PM, Konstantin Ananyev wrote:
> > parse_portmask() returns both portmask value and possible error code
> > as 32-bit integer. That causes some confusion for callers.
> > Split error code and portmask value into two distinct variables.
> > Also allows to run the app with unprotected_port_mask == 0.
> 
> This would also allow cryptodev_mask == 0 to work well which should not be the case.
> 
> >
> > Fixes: d299106e8e31 ("examples/ipsec-secgw: add IPsec sample application")
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Konstantin Ananyev <konstantin.ananyev@intel.com>
> > ---
> >   examples/ipsec-secgw/ipsec-secgw.c | 29 +++++++++++++++--------------
> >   1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/examples/ipsec-secgw/ipsec-secgw.c b/examples/ipsec-secgw/ipsec-secgw.c
> > index fafb41161..5d7071657 100644
> > --- a/examples/ipsec-secgw/ipsec-secgw.c
> > +++ b/examples/ipsec-secgw/ipsec-secgw.c
> > @@ -972,20 +972,19 @@ print_usage(const char *prgname)
> >   }
> >
> >   static int32_t
> > -parse_portmask(const char *portmask)
> > +parse_portmask(const char *portmask, uint32_t *pmv)
> >   {
> > -	char *end = NULL;
> > +	char *end;
> >   	unsigned long pm;
> >
> >   	/* parse hexadecimal string */
> > +	errno = 0;
> >   	pm = strtoul(portmask, &end, 16);
> > -	if ((portmask[0] == '\0') || (end == NULL) || (*end != '\0'))
> > +	if (errno != 0 || *end != '\0' || pm > UINT32_MAX)
> >   		return -1;
> >
> > -	if ((pm == 0) && errno)
> > -		return -1;
> > -
> > -	return pm;
> > +	*pmv = pm;
> > +	return 0;
> >   }
> >
> >   static int32_t
> > @@ -1063,6 +1062,7 @@ parse_args(int32_t argc, char **argv)
> >   	int32_t opt, ret;
> >   	char **argvopt;
> >   	int32_t option_index;
> > +	uint32_t v;
> >   	char *prgname = argv[0];
> >   	int32_t f_present = 0;
> >
> > @@ -1073,8 +1073,8 @@ parse_args(int32_t argc, char **argv)
> >
> >   		switch (opt) {
> >   		case 'p':
> > -			enabled_port_mask = parse_portmask(optarg);
> > -			if (enabled_port_mask == 0) {
> > +			ret = parse_portmask(optarg, &enabled_port_mask);
> > +			if (ret < 0 || enabled_port_mask == 0) {
> >   				printf("invalid portmask\n");
> >   				print_usage(prgname);
> >   				return -1;
> > @@ -1085,8 +1085,8 @@ parse_args(int32_t argc, char **argv)
> >   			promiscuous_on = 1;
> >   			break;
> >   		case 'u':
> > -			unprotected_port_mask = parse_portmask(optarg);
> > -			if (unprotected_port_mask == 0) {
> > +			ret = parse_portmask(optarg, &unprotected_port_mask);
> > +			if (ret < 0) {
> >   				printf("invalid unprotected portmask\n");
> >   				print_usage(prgname);
> >   				return -1;
> > @@ -1147,15 +1147,16 @@ parse_args(int32_t argc, char **argv)
> >   					single_sa_idx);
> >   			break;
> >   		case CMD_LINE_OPT_CRYPTODEV_MASK_NUM:
> > -			ret = parse_portmask(optarg);
> > +			ret = parse_portmask(optarg, &v);
> 
> I think there is no need for v, enabled_cryptodev_mask can be used instead.

Right now - it can't as enabled_cryptodevmask is uint64_t.
To do what you suggesting we have either downgrade enabled_cryptodevmask 32-bits,
or upgrade enabled_port_mask to 64-bit and change parse_portmask() to accept 64-bit parameter.

> 
> >   			if (ret == -1) {
> 
> enabled_cryptodev_mask should not be 0 and should be checked here.

Could you explain a bit more why enabled_cryptodevmask==0 is not allowed?

Konstantin