RE: [PATCH v5 2/2] drivers/net: return number of types in get supported types

["Power, Ciara" <ciara.power@intel.com>]

Hi Ferruh,

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yigit@amd.com>
> Sent: Friday, January 19, 2024 2:51 PM
> To: Sivaramakrishnan, VenkatX <venkatx.sivaramakrishnan@intel.com>; Igor
> Russkikh <irusskikh@marvell.com>; Selwin Sebastian
> <selwin.sebastian@amd.com>; Ajit Khaparde
> <ajit.khaparde@broadcom.com>; Somnath Kotur
> <somnath.kotur@broadcom.com>; Nithin Dabilpuram
> <ndabilpuram@marvell.com>; Kiran Kumar K <kirankumark@marvell.com>;
> Sunil Kumar Kori <skori@marvell.com>; Satha Rao
> <skoteshwar@marvell.com>; Zhang, Yuying <yuying.zhang@intel.com>; Xing,
> Beilei <beilei.xing@intel.com>; Rahul Lakkireddy
> <rahul.lakkireddy@chelsio.com>; Hemant Agrawal
> <hemant.agrawal@nxp.com>; Sachin Saxena <sachin.saxena@nxp.com>; Su,
> Simei <simei.su@intel.com>; Wu, Wenjun1 <wenjun1.wu@intel.com>;
> Gagandeep Singh <g.singh@nxp.com>; John Daley <johndale@cisco.com>;
> Hyong Youb Kim <hyonkim@cisco.com>; Gaetan Rivet <grive@u256.net>;
> Zhang, Qi Z <qi.z.zhang@intel.com>; Wang, Xiao W <xiao.w.wang@intel.com>;
> Jie Hai <haijie1@huawei.com>; Yisen Zhuang <yisen.zhuang@huawei.com>;
> Wu, Jingjing <jingjing.wu@intel.com>; Yang, Qiming
> <qiming.yang@intel.com>; Guo, Junfeng <junfeng.guo@intel.com>; Andrew
> Boyer <andrew.boyer@amd.com>; Long Li <longli@microsoft.com>; Matan
> Azrad <matan@nvidia.com>; Viacheslav Ovsiienko <viacheslavo@nvidia.com>;
> Dariusz Sosnowski <dsosnowski@nvidia.com>; Ori Kam <orika@nvidia.com>;
> Suanming Mou <suanmingm@nvidia.com>; Chaoyong He
> <chaoyong.he@corigine.com>; Jiawen Wu <jiawenwu@trustnetic.com>;
> Harman Kalra <hkalra@marvell.com>; Devendra Singh Rawat
> <dsinghrawat@marvell.com>; Alok Prasad <palok@marvell.com>; Andrew
> Rybchenko <andrew.rybchenko@oktetlabs.ru>; Jerin Jacob
> <jerinj@marvell.com>; Maciej Czekaj <mczekaj@marvell.com>; Jian Wang
> <jianwang@trustnetic.com>; Behrens, Jochen <jbehrens@vmware.com>;
> Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net>
> Cc: dev@dpdk.org; Power, Ciara <ciara.power@intel.com>
> Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 2/2] drivers/net: return number of types in get
> supported types
> 
> On 1/18/2024 12:07 PM, Sivaramakrishnan Venkat wrote:
> > Missing "RTE_PTYPE_UNKNOWN" ptype causes buffer overflow.
> > Enhance code such that the dev_supported_ptypes_get() function pointer
> > now returns  the number of elements to eliminate the need for
> > "RTE_PTYPE_UNKNOWN" as the last item.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Sivaramakrishnan Venkat
> > <venkatx.sivaramakrishnan@intel.com>
> >
> > --
> >   v5:
> >      - modified commit message.
> >      - tidied formatting of code.
> >      - added doxygen comment.
> >   v4:
> >      - split into two patches, one for backporting and another one for
> >        upstream rework.
> >   v3:
> >      - reworked the function to return number of elements and remove the
> >        need for RTE_PTYPE_UNKNOWN in list.
> >   v2:
> >      - extended fix for multiple drivers.
> > ---
> 
> <...>
> 
> >  59 files changed, 188 insertions(+), 141 deletions(-)
> >
> 
> Some driver still have the flag:
> - drivers/net/mvneta/mvneta_ethdev.c
> - drivers/net/mvpp2/mrvl_ethdev.c
> - pfe
> - dpaa
> - drivers/net/thunderx/nicvf_ethdev.c
> - drivers/net/nfp/nfp_net_common.c
> 
> Above seems the ones updated in previous patch, flags added in previous
> patch should be removed in this one.
> 
> 
> And following seems missed and still has the flag:
> 
> - drivers/net/ngbe/ngbe_ptypes.c
> 
> <...>
> 
> > @@ -3971,9 +3975,6 @@ rte_eth_dev_set_ptypes(uint16_t port_id,
> uint32_t ptype_mask,
> >  		}
> >  	}
> >
> > -	if (set_ptypes != NULL && j < num)
> > -		set_ptypes[j] = RTE_PTYPE_UNKNOWN;
> > -
> >
> 
> This change is new in this version and not mentioned in the changelog.
> 
> 'rte_eth_dev_set_ptypes()' returns 'set_ptypes' that terminated with
> 'RTE_PTYPE_UNKNOWN', this is how that API works.
> Why changing it in this patch?

Apologies, yes, we missed this in the changelog.

For the change itself, if we are removing the need for RTE_PTYPE_UNKNOWN in the supported ptypes lists to mark the last element, do we still need to add it here when setting ptypes list?
Maybe a misunderstanding on my part - I thought it would be the same for both cases.

Thanks,
Ciara