From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>
Received: from mails.dpdk.org (mails.dpdk.org [217.70.189.124])
by inbox.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AA54CA0579;
Wed, 7 Apr 2021 16:40:57 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from [217.70.189.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4A710406A3;
Wed, 7 Apr 2021 16:40:57 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from mail-qk1-f181.google.com (mail-qk1-f181.google.com
[209.85.222.181])
by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D9DC14013F
for <dev@dpdk.org>; Wed, 7 Apr 2021 16:40:55 +0200 (CEST)
Received: by mail-qk1-f181.google.com with SMTP id v70so18887128qkb.8
for <dev@dpdk.org>; Wed, 07 Apr 2021 07:40:55 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=broadcom.com; s=google;
h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to
:cc; bh=bpCXuL/IM4gGqwi9eTV4b24TVSZ5mqr3zDTQzpybXW8=;
b=cx1iIt8S1OeoLAMz9w4x6hRdVpfWzT2RwGFmkxcPk8xjEc7vnAEFs6rfx/KDiQGuEZ
4BHFFFTgV4HnnaXwOruPamcs1K8Jr/jX2tagL5l1y8zOae2mYKPNqgn3Nd/04Uq8VgQ5
3FPEqP2FU1HQ3c8leo35DXw23mWMJ1WdwrXJo=
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
d=1e100.net; s=20161025;
h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date
:message-id:subject:to:cc;
bh=bpCXuL/IM4gGqwi9eTV4b24TVSZ5mqr3zDTQzpybXW8=;
b=MsEhppAYtQbOioTTF8hgrFU+278OB0uVNXeF3c1P00wrcVpwZoU9nPF0nR2KKrNz40
EDnpjaEYUAnmKyX/2Yx3PFRaqK/l8jXNemY0c4NiaiyAoMU2koHXucvFXyd8lSq820MY
7+db8AONPGxej3a/0EvM8TSYd1wgblCeKf8Hs+ESPUgW3+1hTK2w7QJ5ChlpiBhnb1ah
LA64j2Y741bU35gD0blAk5W5iN2UahXcedcJMzSF4zQWjVwM166PS6lSL71OJuwUQh5n
/PebLmtnjTDw/UbKymEeTeuIZax68GyzKRdLMQKAWSmsb3umURnN4xnnqpGSZHg3GQqK
CutQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532YcKlNgYjULSTNMKwPiIgmN/TjZIMc5T4Rd13Lk4LgcRGd6niV
ZDMfKR6LGDUI5qXxroxsALBNB9ZQOGOmDADYEdjqdA==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzUnJliUWoePY+vZGlV9yOERYSzvjEPcnIccaG3BiSTfPoEmgGjDHoi/TDmBdfhF41hNOzfOTVGzBn1viJ8ZtA=
X-Received: by 2002:a05:620a:14ac:: with SMTP id
x12mr3418872qkj.409.1617806454959;
Wed, 07 Apr 2021 07:40:54 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <6114bde2-423a-da82-ac4d-608141235e39@huawei.com>
<1672555.D3d3fyF7jD@thomas>
<DM6PR11MB44917D38667EB1A6B2E5F0BA9A759@DM6PR11MB4491.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
<CALBAE1MY4ijoJqzCeaS+Ud-X0LQ1BzX8ypbVW043GJgcyUZEiQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CALBAE1MY4ijoJqzCeaS+Ud-X0LQ1BzX8ypbVW043GJgcyUZEiQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Ajit Khaparde <ajit.khaparde@broadcom.com>
Date: Wed, 7 Apr 2021 07:40:38 -0700
Message-ID: <CACZ4nhuqA3g5UCKS=sDT34rK-r6yP4fOwtPC7NdFKwpUn8+FuQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Jerin Jacob <jerinjacobk@gmail.com>
Cc: "Ananyev, Konstantin" <konstantin.ananyev@intel.com>,
Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net>,
"Yigit, Ferruh" <ferruh.yigit@intel.com>,
Andrew Rybchenko <Andrew.Rybchenko@oktetlabs.ru>,
"Min Hu (Connor)" <humin29@huawei.com>, "dev@dpdk.org" <dev@dpdk.org>,
"olivier.matz@6wind.com" <olivier.matz@6wind.com>,
"david.marchand@redhat.com" <david.marchand@redhat.com>,
"jerinj@marvell.com" <jerinj@marvell.com>,
"hemant.agrawal@nxp.com" <hemant.agrawal@nxp.com>, "Richardson,
Bruce" <bruce.richardson@intel.com>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature";
micalg=sha-256; boundary="00000000000018222c05bf62eb0b"
X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.29
Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] Questions about API with no parameter check
X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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>
Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org
Sender: "dev" <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>
--00000000000018222c05bf62eb0b
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
On Wed, Apr 7, 2021 at 6:20 AM Jerin Jacob <jerinjacobk@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Apr 7, 2021 at 5:23 PM Ananyev, Konstantin
> <konstantin.ananyev@intel.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > > 07/04/2021 13:28, Min Hu (Connor):
> > > > Hi, all,
> > > > Many APIs in DPDK does not check if the pointer parameter is
> > > > NULL or not. For example, in 'rte_ethdev.c':
> > > > int
> > > > rte_eth_rx_queue_setup(uint16_t port_id, uint16_t rx_queue_id,
> > > > uint16_t nb_rx_desc, unsigned int socket_id,
> > > > const struct rte_eth_rxconf *rx_conf,
> > > > struct rte_mempool *mp)
> > > >
> > > > int
> > > > rte_eth_link_get(uint16_t port_id, struct rte_eth_link *eth_link)
> > > >
> > > > int
> > > > rte_eth_stats_get(uint16_t port_id, struct rte_eth_stats *stats)
> > > >
> > > > int
> > > > rte_eth_dev_info_get(uint16_t port_id, struct rte_eth_dev_info *dev_info)
> > > >
> > > > As these APIs could be used by any APPs, if the APP give NULL as
> > > > the pointer parameter, segmetation default will occur.
> > > >
> > > > So, my question is, should we add check in the API? like that,
> > > > int rte_eth_stats_get(uint16_t port_id, struct rte_eth_stats *stats)
> > > > {
> > > > if (stats == NULL)
> > > > return -EINVAL;
> > > > ...
> > > > }
> > > >
> > > > Or, that is redundant, the parameter correctness should be guaranteed by
> > > > the APP?
> > > >
> > > > What's your opinion? Hope for your reply.
> > >
> > > I remember it has been discussed in the past (many years ago),
> > > and the opinion was to not clutter the code for something that
> > > is a basic fault from the app.
> > >
> > > I don't have a strong opinion.
> > > What is your opinion? Others?
> >
> > As I can see these are control path functions.
> > So some extra formal parameters check wouldn't hurt.
> > +1 from me to add them.
>
> +1 to add more sanity checks in control path APIs
+1
But are we going to check all parameters?
>
>
> > Konstantin
> >
> >
--00000000000018222c05bf62eb0b--