From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from out3-smtp.messagingengine.com (out3-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.27]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3D5B15681; Wed, 24 Oct 2018 16:47:19 +0200 (CEST) Received: from compute1.internal (compute1.nyi.internal [10.202.2.41]) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id B426C21B87; Wed, 24 Oct 2018 10:47:18 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mailfrontend1 ([10.202.2.162]) by compute1.internal (MEProxy); Wed, 24 Oct 2018 10:47:18 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=monjalon.net; h= from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:content-transfer-encoding:content-type; s=mesmtp; bh=tKvrsh8y4UPy/kyJtbcadBwZ4e+kGZCagaQwVb9DvmQ=; b=frNksOBdGlSq ls+6X/ccVeiwNwwV2/qfUPTXTWy1uUkT9z6L0Dj5tuTANzXzs4CR02pg4Z1n3dDG pcpGUVnm5WoKB2VTQmJK6l0rlzxYzOY/jZBBtN1QvhpbmRQfh0p1Qu42/GXWfUhz AVLKjzZpruSUFlaz/ULysCWU4+7+6ds= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:content-transfer-encoding:content-type :date:from:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references :subject:to:x-me-proxy:x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender :x-sasl-enc; s=fm1; bh=tKvrsh8y4UPy/kyJtbcadBwZ4e+kGZCagaQwVb9Dv mQ=; b=LWUVJgSnlsaB7Jkq1xKOBsfsD+KeyCs6UGsrqNA5pbm7sW0CHGWfKPFsc jy/ZC36n6qzzJzYazkgZgqSj+Aol2Fq+FkXB2NIPjPJoZJ/B6FxlFBaWQeWxc/Ew iSDpenPOWG+ihIC8incCcT2N3DuM43Ob7spaSrutLagu6pbgbLyd/duzEuZ2j9kC N9DisjHU/vrNzdZW93FqI1KjfQwK7CyNPHylSeEZPw8E96CJesLhHScQuefpDzp/ CXJcuzAspAvghieaJ1QzeHi93cnH0tphMrVnhUU26nzVVynxdI32tcXZwFnwOonM i2IVrwunz36LdhgqbAtNgVakl4sYA== X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Proxy: Received: from xps.localnet (184.203.134.77.rev.sfr.net [77.134.203.184]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 3BFA7E4408; Wed, 24 Oct 2018 10:47:17 -0400 (EDT) From: Thomas Monjalon To: Darek Stojaczyk Cc: stable@dpdk.org, "Burakov, Anatoly" , dev@dpdk.org Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2018 16:47:21 +0200 Message-ID: <4205128.QQKyTifBQP@xps> In-Reply-To: <59545f64-3fff-b046-d212-f134fe55de77@intel.com> References: <20181024100517.17494-1-dariusz.stojaczyk@intel.com> <59545f64-3fff-b046-d212-f134fe55de77@intel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [dpdk-stable] [PATCH] ipc: fix undefined behavior in no-shconf mode X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2018 14:47:19 -0000 24/10/2018 12:20, Burakov, Anatoly: > On 24-Oct-18 11:05 AM, Darek Stojaczyk wrote: > > In no-shconf mode the rte_mp_request_sync() wasn't initializing > > the `reply` parameter, which contained e.g. a number of sent > > requests. Callers of rte_mp_request_sync() might check that > > param afterwards and might read potentially unitialized memory. > > > > The no-shconf check that makes us return early (with rc = 0) was > > placed before the `reply` initialization. Fix this by making the > > `reply` initialization occur first. > > > > Fixes: 5848e3d2813c ("ipc: support --no-shconf mode") > > Cc: anatoly.burakov@intel.com > > Cc: stable@dpdk.org > > > > Signed-off-by: Darek Stojaczyk > > --- > > Acked-by: Anatoly Burakov Applied, thanks