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 EC31A45543 for ; Mon, 1 Jul 2024 06:57:41 +0200 (CEST) Received: from mails.dpdk.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E225E4025D; Mon, 1 Jul 2024 06:57:41 +0200 (CEST) Received: from mail-oa1-f51.google.com (mail-oa1-f51.google.com [209.85.160.51]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 23AC64021F for ; Mon, 1 Jul 2024 06:57:40 +0200 (CEST) Received: by mail-oa1-f51.google.com with SMTP id 586e51a60fabf-250c0555a63so1305039fac.1 for ; Sun, 30 Jun 2024 21:57:40 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=iol.unh.edu; s=unh-iol; t=1719809859; x=1720414659; darn=dpdk.org; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=SKNIYY7QE/d4mKl+VEgSHye0gBHPzxKBmHgb+DSCkHk=; b=eQQ9UIExBubO1x0DdIZA/9J3jLvSDmscWmdH6SxRNbdcVCuvpWFQtyTBpBREGeTYTc SEtJzD7e9eKPsWpzn41sTQQcVl/qYGNsxHZvoFyQ0eg8EK7FW3xqG+oeFePrgWY0pl9E cBR6BVkwZ/bE37l4m468VwUqxuAAHkR/cDr0U= X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1719809859; x=1720414659; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id :reply-to; bh=SKNIYY7QE/d4mKl+VEgSHye0gBHPzxKBmHgb+DSCkHk=; b=EDvDHRuW3SJsXue4OQE6lFKPRwIUWu4tqeYG+JRk+lSi1Deo2bMhxfTmWlUt8VDZT9 TU1z32Vk8cQzEBmWB9K+mClwiPyMSB6LMvoLk+gDXM5NUJgZpH9i9UKwQROOyg+u+hqX LSuxY4+VsEPTYBNOaZsBBXYbU/HioZlG3yEv0Nz8gw+TNDuWCATNk2pLAJDEYjYoRWom a4VcmcBNR8gIhpSEfVPfKtAlfjyhx7hW0ZKIfbtz7UIfy/dgM+NHiRTvCSu4zVze4bZ8 Djy2pF9qiemVekYCAf0cuuVEVqjpACT9S1k3UodnHTi1cDhMGfHBBOnBjln968bzEQXf e3Ww== X-Forwarded-Encrypted: i=1; AJvYcCV7gQC22to4wPWxpLbvtv3QtEjjRd6Kr4rAnI5/3qWLNW8TX4bZm0LOrd9rY/Y7LfAT9XbDadpm9rQkl6Ovi7c= X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0Ywd04fnTPdZV4XaUgkTS5273BSa7T7RF1huwmxF6EvDkSlnuhW5 NlVgFzHxfScNntqXoGp7FsUtqbOdZ/B8QpC5WdD3I6cw2Bitc1Te4jInii1AuR1a7X1Eutl24Fj ri8pJT62HtzNTVzRWj93cOm6ffe1rfZoj8rIXXw== X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IEhTaj7ElPVFz4LHT6kHdBejFbRO+LK5LxR3diRgqL8yJBbWs+PRkCNEsJMk4RRZUcg9mbFMjlcWkC/thZ+Agk= X-Received: by 2002:a05:6870:6490:b0:254:9182:180b with SMTP id 586e51a60fabf-25db3433f27mr4612834fac.29.1719809859411; Sun, 30 Jun 2024 21:57:39 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: In-Reply-To: From: Patrick Robb Date: Mon, 1 Jul 2024 00:57:28 -0400 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] net/memif: fix buffer overflow in zero copy Rx To: Mihai Brodschi Cc: Jakub Grajciar , Ferruh Yigit , dev@dpdk.org, stable@dpdk.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-BeenThere: stable@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: patches for DPDK stable branches List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: stable-bounces@dpdk.org I see this patchseries had a CI testing fail, for coremask DTS test on Marvel CN10k. I don't think it could relate to the contents of your patch though. It had a timeout: TestCoremask: Test Case test_individual_coremask Result FAILED: TIMEOUT on ./arm64-native-linuxapp-gcc/app/test/dpdk-test -c 0x8000 -n 2 --log-level="lib.eal,8" So, I'm issuing a retest. Recheck-request: iol-marvell-Functional