[dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3] app/proc-info: fix port mask parse issue
Burakov, Anatoly
anatoly.burakov at intel.com
Fri Nov 16 11:35:35 CET 2018
On 16-Nov-18 10:15 AM, Burakov, Anatoly wrote:
> On 07-Nov-18 6:10 AM, Li Han wrote:
>> parse_portmask return type is int,but global variable
>> "enabled_port_mask" type is uint32_t.so in proc_info_parse_args
>> function,when parse_portmask return -1,"enabled_port_mask" will
>> get a huge value and "if (enabled_port_mask == 0)" will never happen.
>>
>> Fixes: 22561383ea17 ("app: replace dump_cfg by proc_info")
>> Signed-off-by: Li Han <han.li1 at zte.com.cn>
>>
>> ---
>> v3:
>> *fix commit meassges issue
>> v2:
>> *fix typecast issue
>> ---
>> app/proc-info/main.c | 9 +++------
>> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/app/proc-info/main.c b/app/proc-info/main.c
>> index c20effa..650d599 100644
>> --- a/app/proc-info/main.c
>> +++ b/app/proc-info/main.c
>> @@ -37,7 +37,7 @@
>> #define MAX_STRING_LEN 256
>> /**< mask of enabled ports */
>> -static uint32_t enabled_port_mask;
>> +static uint64_t enabled_port_mask;
>> /**< Enable stats. */
>> static uint32_t enable_stats;
>> /**< Enable xstats. */
>> @@ -90,7 +90,7 @@
>> /*
>> * Parse the portmask provided at run time.
>> */
>> -static int
>> +static unsigned long
>> parse_portmask(const char *portmask)
>> {
>> char *end = NULL;
>> @@ -103,12 +103,9 @@
>> if ((portmask[0] == '\0') || (end == NULL) || (*end != '\0') ||
>> (errno != 0)) {
>> printf("%s ERROR parsing the port mask\n", __func__);
>> - return -1;
>> + return 0;
>> }
>> - if (pm == 0)
>> - return -1;
>> -
>> return pm;
>> }
>>
>
> Hi,
>
> This fix appears wrong. If you're making the value uint64_t, you cannot
> encode errors in the value. So, it's better to leave the return type as
> int, return 0 or -1 on success/error, and store the parsed result in a
> pointer passed to the function instead. Something like this:
>
> static int
> parse_portmask(const char *portmask, uint64_t *mask)
> {
> ...
> if (pm == 0)
> return -1;
> *mask = pm;
> return 0;
> }
>
Also, another thing to note. Unsigned long is 32-bit on 32-bit Linux, so
if you're going to have uint64_t data, you should correct the parsing to
use strtoull() instead.
--
Thanks,
Anatoly
More information about the dev
mailing list