diff mbox series

ipc: fix undefined behavior in no-shconf mode

Message ID 20181024100517.17494-1-dariusz.stojaczyk@intel.com (mailing list archive)
State Accepted, archived
Delegated to: Thomas Monjalon
Headers
Series ipc: fix undefined behavior in no-shconf mode |

Checks

Context Check Description
ci/checkpatch success coding style OK
ci/Intel-compilation success Compilation OK

Commit Message

Stojaczyk, Dariusz Oct. 24, 2018, 10:05 a.m. UTC 
  In no-shconf mode the rte_mp_request_sync() wasn't initializing
the `reply` parameter, which contained e.g. a number of sent
requests. Callers of rte_mp_request_sync() might check that
param afterwards and might read potentially unitialized memory.

The no-shconf check that makes us return early (with rc = 0) was
placed before the `reply` initialization. Fix this by making the
`reply` initialization occur first.

Fixes: 5848e3d2813c ("ipc: support --no-shconf mode")
Cc: anatoly.burakov@intel.com
Cc: stable@dpdk.org

Signed-off-by: Darek Stojaczyk <dariusz.stojaczyk@intel.com>
---
 lib/librte_eal/common/eal_common_proc.c | 10 +++++-----
 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)

Comments

Anatoly Burakov Oct. 24, 2018, 10:20 a.m. UTC | #1 
On 24-Oct-18 11:05 AM, Darek Stojaczyk wrote:
> In no-shconf mode the rte_mp_request_sync() wasn't initializing
> the `reply` parameter, which contained e.g. a number of sent
> requests. Callers of rte_mp_request_sync() might check that
> param afterwards and might read potentially unitialized memory.
> 
> The no-shconf check that makes us return early (with rc = 0) was
> placed before the `reply` initialization. Fix this by making the
> `reply` initialization occur first.
> 
> Fixes: 5848e3d2813c ("ipc: support --no-shconf mode")
> Cc: anatoly.burakov@intel.com
> Cc: stable@dpdk.org
> 
> Signed-off-by: Darek Stojaczyk <dariusz.stojaczyk@intel.com>
> ---

Acked-by: Anatoly Burakov <anatoly.burakov@intel.com>
Thomas Monjalon Oct. 24, 2018, 2:47 p.m. UTC | #2 
24/10/2018 12:20, Burakov, Anatoly:
> On 24-Oct-18 11:05 AM, Darek Stojaczyk wrote:
> > In no-shconf mode the rte_mp_request_sync() wasn't initializing
> > the `reply` parameter, which contained e.g. a number of sent
> > requests. Callers of rte_mp_request_sync() might check that
> > param afterwards and might read potentially unitialized memory.
> > 
> > The no-shconf check that makes us return early (with rc = 0) was
> > placed before the `reply` initialization. Fix this by making the
> > `reply` initialization occur first.
> > 
> > Fixes: 5848e3d2813c ("ipc: support --no-shconf mode")
> > Cc: anatoly.burakov@intel.com
> > Cc: stable@dpdk.org
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Darek Stojaczyk <dariusz.stojaczyk@intel.com>
> > ---
> 
> Acked-by: Anatoly Burakov <anatoly.burakov@intel.com>

Applied, thanks
diff mbox series

Patch

diff --git a/lib/librte_eal/common/eal_common_proc.c b/lib/librte_eal/common/eal_common_proc.c
index 9fcb91219..97663d3ba 100644
--- a/lib/librte_eal/common/eal_common_proc.c
+++ b/lib/librte_eal/common/eal_common_proc.c
@@ -939,13 +939,17 @@  rte_mp_request_sync(struct rte_mp_msg *req, struct rte_mp_reply *reply,
 	if (check_input(req) == false)
 		return -1;
 
+	reply->nb_sent = 0;
+	reply->nb_received = 0;
+	reply->msgs = NULL;
+
 	if (internal_config.no_shconf) {
 		RTE_LOG(DEBUG, EAL, "No shared files mode enabled, IPC is disabled\n");
 		return 0;
 	}
 
 	if (gettimeofday(&now, NULL) < 0) {
-		RTE_LOG(ERR, EAL, "Faile to get current time\n");
+		RTE_LOG(ERR, EAL, "Failed to get current time\n");
 		rte_errno = errno;
 		return -1;
 	}
@@ -954,10 +958,6 @@  rte_mp_request_sync(struct rte_mp_msg *req, struct rte_mp_reply *reply,
 	end.tv_sec = now.tv_sec + ts->tv_sec +
 			(now.tv_usec * 1000 + ts->tv_nsec) / 1000000000;
 
-	reply->nb_sent = 0;
-	reply->nb_received = 0;
-	reply->msgs = NULL;
-
 	/* for secondary process, send request to the primary process only */
 	if (rte_eal_process_type() == RTE_PROC_SECONDARY) {
 		pthread_mutex_lock(&pending_requests.lock);