From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mails.dpdk.org (mails.dpdk.org [217.70.189.124]) by inbox.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 452A1468AE; Mon, 16 Jun 2025 16:41:23 +0200 (CEST) Received: from mails.dpdk.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D6E21402BC; Mon, 16 Jun 2025 16:41:22 +0200 (CEST) Received: from inbox.dpdk.org (inbox.dpdk.org [95.142.172.178]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 77B8C402B5 for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2025 16:41:21 +0200 (CEST) Received: by inbox.dpdk.org (Postfix, from userid 33) id 57150468C1; Mon, 16 Jun 2025 16:41:21 +0200 (CEST) From: bugzilla@dpdk.org To: dev@dpdk.org Subject: [DPDK/core Bug 1724] test_pktmbuf_read_from_offset tests for incorrect overflow behaviour of rte_pktmbuf_read Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2025 14:41:21 +0000 X-Bugzilla-Reason: AssignedTo X-Bugzilla-Type: new X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None X-Bugzilla-Product: DPDK X-Bugzilla-Component: core X-Bugzilla-Version: unspecified X-Bugzilla-Keywords: X-Bugzilla-Severity: minor X-Bugzilla-Who: marat.khalili@huawei.com X-Bugzilla-Status: UNCONFIRMED X-Bugzilla-Resolution: X-Bugzilla-Priority: Normal X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: dev@dpdk.org X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: --- X-Bugzilla-Flags: X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: bug_id short_desc product version rep_platform op_sys bug_status bug_severity priority component assigned_to reporter target_milestone Message-ID: Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=17500848810.7B7D0.1549279 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Bugzilla-URL: http://bugs.dpdk.org/ Auto-Submitted: auto-generated X-Auto-Response-Suppress: All MIME-Version: 1.0 X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org --17500848810.7B7D0.1549279 Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2025 16:41:21 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Bugzilla-URL: http://bugs.dpdk.org/ Auto-Submitted: auto-generated X-Auto-Response-Suppress: All https://bugs.dpdk.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3D1724 Bug ID: 1724 Summary: test_pktmbuf_read_from_offset tests for incorrect overflow behaviour of rte_pktmbuf_read Product: DPDK Version: unspecified Hardware: All OS: All Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: minor Priority: Normal Component: core Assignee: dev@dpdk.org Reporter: marat.khalili@huawei.com Target Milestone: --- Test function test_pktmbuf_read_from_offset as one of its checks surprisingly verifies that the following call succeeds even though rte_pktmbuf_read never guarantees this behaviour in its documentation: rte_pktmbuf_read(m, hdr_len, UINT_MAX, NULL); The reason this call succeeds is due to 32-bit unsigned integer overflow, but it is unlikely that this behaviour is intentional and needs testing. It is very likely instead that the check condition was reversed by mistake. Other similar calls that follow are being correctly verified as failing. And, there were no checks of valid offset and excessive length combinations that would cause the call to fail. --=20 You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug.= --17500848810.7B7D0.1549279 Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2025 16:41:21 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Bugzilla-URL: http://bugs.dpdk.org/ Auto-Submitted: auto-generated X-Auto-Response-Suppress: All

Bug ID	1724
Summary	test_pktmbuf_read_from_offset tests for incorrect overflow be= haviour of rte_pktmbuf_read
Product	DPDK
Version	unspecified
Hardware	All
OS	All
Status	UNCONFIRMED
Severity	minor
Priority	Normal
Component	core
Assignee	dev@dpdk.org
Reporter	marat.khalili@huawei.com
Target Milestone	---

Test function test_pktmbuf_read_fr=
om_offset as one of its checks
surprisingly verifies that the following call succeeds even though
rte_pktmbuf_read never guarantees this behaviour in its documentation:

    rte_pktmbuf_read(m, hdr_len, UINT_MAX, NULL);

The reason this call succeeds is due to 32-bit unsigned integer
overflow, but it is unlikely that this behaviour is intentional and
needs testing. It is very likely instead that the check condition was
reversed by mistake. Other similar calls that follow are being correctly
verified as failing. And, there were no checks of valid offset and
excessive length combinations that would cause the call to fail.

You are receiving this mail because:

You are the assignee for the bug.

=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20

= --17500848810.7B7D0.1549279--