From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <anatoly.burakov@intel.com>
Received: from mga11.intel.com (mga11.intel.com [192.55.52.93])
by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 133745F72
for <dev@dpdk.org>; Mon, 10 Dec 2018 11:42:53 +0100 (CET)
X-Amp-Result: SKIPPED(no attachment in message)
X-Amp-File-Uploaded: False
Received: from orsmga006.jf.intel.com ([10.7.209.51])
by fmsmga102.fm.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384;
10 Dec 2018 02:42:52 -0800
X-ExtLoop1: 1
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.56,338,1539673200"; d="scan'208";a="99484406"
Received: from aburakov-mobl1.ger.corp.intel.com (HELO [10.237.220.93])
([10.237.220.93])
by orsmga006.jf.intel.com with ESMTP; 10 Dec 2018 02:42:51 -0800
To: Jakub Grajciar <jgrajcia@cisco.com>, dev@dpdk.org
References: <20181210091457.6031-1-jgrajcia@cisco.com>
<20181210100639.30244-1-jgrajcia@cisco.com>
From: "Burakov, Anatoly" <anatoly.burakov@intel.com>
Message-ID: <7ebcd985-0d04-c0e1-5411-8e02c8bc72b2@intel.com>
Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2018 10:42:51 +0000
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/60.3.2
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20181210100639.30244-1-jgrajcia@cisco.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [RFC v2] /net: memory interface (memif)
X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions <dev.dpdk.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://mails.dpdk.org/options/dev>,
<mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://mails.dpdk.org/archives/dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:dev@dpdk.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://mails.dpdk.org/listinfo/dev>,
<mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2018 10:42:54 -0000
On 10-Dec-18 10:06 AM, Jakub Grajciar wrote:
> Signed-off-by: Jakub Grajciar <jgrajcia@cisco.com>
> ---
As a general comment, some description/cover letter would have been nice.
> +
> + memif_msg_disconnect_t *d = &e->msg.disconnect;
> +
> + e->msg.type = MEMIF_MSG_TYPE_DISCONNECT;
> + d->code = err_code;
> +
> + if (reason != NULL) {
> + strncpy((char *)d->string, reason, strlen(reason));
> + if (cc->pmd != NULL) {
> + strncpy(cc->pmd->local_disc_string, reason,
> + strlen(reason));
> + }
I haven't looked at the entire thing, this is just something that caught
my eye during quick skimming through code.
On the face of it, this looks dangerous - you're setting the destination
buffer size from source buffer size. What if `d->string` is shorter than
`reason`?
--
Thanks,
Anatoly