[v4] eal: fix core number validation
Checks
Commit Message
When incorrect core value or range provided,
as part of -l command line option, a crash occurs.
Added valid range checks to fix the crash.
Added ut check for negative core values.
Added unit test case for invalid core number range.
Fixes: d888cb8b9613 ("eal: add core list input format")
Cc: stable@dpdk.org
Signed-off-by: Hari Kumar Vemula <hari.kumarx.vemula@intel.com>
--
v4: Used RTE_MAX_LCORE for max core check
v3: Added unit test cases for invalid core number range
v2: Replace strtoul with strtol
Modified log message
---
lib/librte_eal/common/eal_common_options.c | 9 +++++++--
test/test/test_eal_flags.c | 15 ++++++++++++++-
2 files changed, 21 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
Comments
On Fri, Jan 11, 2019 at 3:15 PM Hari Kumar Vemula <
hari.kumarx.vemula@intel.com> wrote:
>
> diff --git a/test/test/test_eal_flags.c b/test/test/test_eal_flags.c
> index 2acab9d69..fc45bf953 100644
> --- a/test/test/test_eal_flags.c
> +++ b/test/test/test_eal_flags.c
> @@ -18,6 +18,7 @@
> #include <sys/file.h>
> #include <limits.h>
>
> +#include <rte_per_lcore.h>
> #include <rte_debug.h>
> #include <rte_string_fns.h>
>
> @@ -513,6 +514,16 @@ test_missing_c_flag(void)
> const char *argv25[] = { prgname, prefix, mp_flag,
> "-n", "3", "--lcores",
> "0-1,2@(5-7),(3-5)@(0,2),(0,6),7"};
>
+ /* core number is negative value */
> + const char * const argv26[] = { prgname, prefix, mp_flag,
> + "-n", "3", "--lcores", "-5" };
> + const char * const argv27[] = { prgname, prefix, mp_flag,
> + "-n", "3", "--lcores", "-5-7" };
>
I did not see this before, but you fixed the "-l" eal option, not
"--lcores" option.
So those unit tests are wrong.
> + /* core number is maximum value */
> + const char * const argv28[] = { prgname, prefix, mp_flag,
> + "-n", "3", "--lcores", "RTE_MAX_LCORE+1" };
> + const char * const argv29[] = { prgname, prefix, mp_flag,
> + "-n", "3", "--lcores",
> "1-(RTE_MAX_LCORE+1)" };
>
> if (launch_proc(argv2) != 0) {
> printf("Error - "
>
Passing "RTE_MAX_LCORE+1" is indeed wrong (be it with "-l" or "--lcores"
options), but I would still prefer to check the formatted value of
RTE_MAX_LCORE (no need for that +1, btw).
So please, in next version, test against "-l", RTE_STR(RTE_MAX_LCORE) and
"-l", "1-" RTE_STR(RTE_MAX_LCORE).
Thanks.
@@ -592,7 +592,9 @@ eal_parse_corelist(const char *corelist)
if (*corelist == '\0')
return -1;
errno = 0;
- idx = strtoul(corelist, &end, 10);
+ idx = strtol(corelist, &end, 10);
+ if (idx < 0 || idx >= (int)cfg->lcore_count)
+ return -1;
if (errno || end == NULL)
return -1;
while (isblank(*end))
@@ -1103,6 +1105,7 @@ eal_parse_common_option(int opt, const char *optarg,
{
static int b_used;
static int w_used;
+ struct rte_config *cfg = rte_eal_get_configuration();
switch (opt) {
/* blacklist */
@@ -1145,7 +1148,9 @@ eal_parse_common_option(int opt, const char *optarg,
/* corelist */
case 'l':
if (eal_parse_corelist(optarg) < 0) {
- RTE_LOG(ERR, EAL, "invalid core list\n");
+ RTE_LOG(ERR, EAL,
+ "invalid core list, please check core numbers are in [0, %u] range\n",
+ cfg->lcore_count-1);
return -1;
}
@@ -18,6 +18,7 @@
#include <sys/file.h>
#include <limits.h>
+#include <rte_per_lcore.h>
#include <rte_debug.h>
#include <rte_string_fns.h>
@@ -513,6 +514,16 @@ test_missing_c_flag(void)
const char *argv25[] = { prgname, prefix, mp_flag,
"-n", "3", "--lcores",
"0-1,2@(5-7),(3-5)@(0,2),(0,6),7"};
+ /* core number is negative value */
+ const char * const argv26[] = { prgname, prefix, mp_flag,
+ "-n", "3", "--lcores", "-5" };
+ const char * const argv27[] = { prgname, prefix, mp_flag,
+ "-n", "3", "--lcores", "-5-7" };
+ /* core number is maximum value */
+ const char * const argv28[] = { prgname, prefix, mp_flag,
+ "-n", "3", "--lcores", "RTE_MAX_LCORE+1" };
+ const char * const argv29[] = { prgname, prefix, mp_flag,
+ "-n", "3", "--lcores", "1-(RTE_MAX_LCORE+1)" };
if (launch_proc(argv2) != 0) {
printf("Error - "
@@ -556,7 +567,9 @@ test_missing_c_flag(void)
launch_proc(argv18) == 0 || launch_proc(argv19) == 0 ||
launch_proc(argv20) == 0 || launch_proc(argv21) == 0 ||
launch_proc(argv21) == 0 || launch_proc(argv22) == 0 ||
- launch_proc(argv23) == 0 || launch_proc(argv24) == 0) {
+ launch_proc(argv23) == 0 || launch_proc(argv24) == 0 ||
+ launch_proc(argv26) == 0 || launch_proc(argv27) == 0 ||
+ launch_proc(argv28) == 0 || launch_proc(argv29) == 0) {
printf("Error - "
"process ran without error with invalid --lcore flag\n");
return -1;