diff mbox series

[v1] examples/ipsec-secgw: resolve coverity issue

Message ID 20200506090240.19214-1-praveen.shetty@intel.com (mailing list archive)
State Superseded, archived
Delegated to: akhil goyal
Headers
Series [v1] examples/ipsec-secgw: resolve coverity issue |

Checks

Context Check Description
ci/checkpatch success coding style OK
ci/travis-robot success Travis build: passed
ci/Intel-compilation success Compilation OK

Commit Message

Shetty, Praveen May 6, 2020, 9:02 a.m. UTC 
  Function create_ipsec_esp_flow returns a negative number in case of any
failure. But passing negative number to strerror is causing the coverity
issue.
In case of failure, displaying exact error message to console is handled
in create_ipsec_esp_flow function.So it is not required to print the
error message again using strerror.
This patch will remove the unnecessary calling of strerror function
to fix the coverity issue.

Coverity issue: 357691
Fixes: 6738c0a95695 ("examples/ipsec-secgw: support flow director")
Cc: praveen.shetty@intel.com

Signed-off-by: Praveen Shetty <praveen.shetty@intel.com>
---
 examples/ipsec-secgw/sa.c | 3 +--
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 2 deletions(-)

Comments

Lukasz Wojciechowski May 6, 2020, 9:37 a.m. UTC | #1 
W dniu 06.05.2020 o 11:02, Praveen Shetty pisze:
> Function create_ipsec_esp_flow returns a negative number in case of any
> failure. But passing negative number to strerror is causing the coverity
> issue.
> In case of failure, displaying exact error message to console is handled
> in create_ipsec_esp_flow function.So it is not required to print the
> error message again using strerror.
> This patch will remove the unnecessary calling of strerror function
> to fix the coverity issue.
>
> Coverity issue: 357691
> Fixes: 6738c0a95695 ("examples/ipsec-secgw: support flow director")
> Cc: praveen.shetty@intel.com
>
> Signed-off-by: Praveen Shetty <praveen.shetty@intel.com>
> ---
>   examples/ipsec-secgw/sa.c | 3 +--
>   1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/examples/ipsec-secgw/sa.c b/examples/ipsec-secgw/sa.c
> index e3a1a5aff..632482176 100644
> --- a/examples/ipsec-secgw/sa.c
> +++ b/examples/ipsec-secgw/sa.c
> @@ -1223,8 +1223,7 @@ sa_add_rules(struct sa_ctx *sa_ctx, const struct ipsec_sa entries[],
>   			rc = create_ipsec_esp_flow(sa);
>   			if (rc != 0)
>   				RTE_LOG(ERR, IPSEC_ESP,
> -					"create_ipsec_esp_flow() failed %s\n",
> -					strerror(rc));
> +					"create_ipsec_esp_flow() failed\n");
>   		}
>   		print_one_sa_rule(sa, inbound);
>   	}

great!, especially that create_ipsec_esp_flow returns mostly -1 in case 
of errors and that would be -EPERM ;)

Acked-by: Lukasz Wojciechowski <l.wojciechow@partner.samsung.com>
Anoob Joseph May 6, 2020, 9:43 a.m. UTC | #2 
Hi Praveen,

Please see inline.

Thanks,
Anoob

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Praveen Shetty <praveen.shetty@intel.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, May 6, 2020 2:33 PM
> To: dev@dpdk.org; declan.doherty@intel.com; akhil.goyal@nxp.com; Anoob
> Joseph <anoobj@marvell.com>
> Cc: bernard.iremonger@intel.com; konstantin.ananyev@intel.com;
> praveen.shetty@intel.com
> Subject: [EXT] [PATCH v1] examples/ipsec-secgw: resolve coverity issue

[Anoob] I believe Thomas insists on explaining the issue that you are trying to fix rather than stating "resolve coverity issue" (which is too generic). So I guess you can remove all such references to coverity and retain rest of your description.
 
> 
> External Email
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> Function create_ipsec_esp_flow returns a negative number in case of any
> failure. But passing negative number to strerror is causing the coverity issue.
> In case of failure, displaying exact error message to console is handled in
> create_ipsec_esp_flow function.So it is not required to print the error message
> again using strerror.
> This patch will remove the unnecessary calling of strerror function to fix the
> coverity issue.
> 
> Coverity issue: 357691
> Fixes: 6738c0a95695 ("examples/ipsec-secgw: support flow director")
> Cc: praveen.shetty@intel.com
> 
> Signed-off-by: Praveen Shetty <praveen.shetty@intel.com>
> ---
>  examples/ipsec-secgw/sa.c | 3 +--
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 2 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/examples/ipsec-secgw/sa.c b/examples/ipsec-secgw/sa.c index
> e3a1a5aff..632482176 100644
> --- a/examples/ipsec-secgw/sa.c
> +++ b/examples/ipsec-secgw/sa.c
> @@ -1223,8 +1223,7 @@ sa_add_rules(struct sa_ctx *sa_ctx, const struct
> ipsec_sa entries[],
>  			rc = create_ipsec_esp_flow(sa);
>  			if (rc != 0)
>  				RTE_LOG(ERR, IPSEC_ESP,
> -					"create_ipsec_esp_flow() failed %s\n",
> -					strerror(rc));
> +					"create_ipsec_esp_flow() failed\n");
>  		}
>  		print_one_sa_rule(sa, inbound);
>  	}
> --
> 2.17.1
Shetty, Praveen May 6, 2020, 10:40 a.m. UTC | #3 
Hi Anoob,

Thank you.

I have modified the commit message and headline accordingly and sent v2.

Regards,
Praveen

-----Original Message-----
From: Anoob Joseph <anoobj@marvell.com> 
Sent: Wednesday, May 6, 2020 3:13 PM
To: Shetty, Praveen <praveen.shetty@intel.com>; dev@dpdk.org; Doherty, Declan <declan.doherty@intel.com>; akhil.goyal@nxp.com
Cc: Iremonger, Bernard <bernard.iremonger@intel.com>; Ananyev, Konstantin <konstantin.ananyev@intel.com>
Subject: RE: [EXT] [PATCH v1] examples/ipsec-secgw: resolve coverity issue

Hi Praveen,

Please see inline.

Thanks,
Anoob

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Praveen Shetty <praveen.shetty@intel.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, May 6, 2020 2:33 PM
> To: dev@dpdk.org; declan.doherty@intel.com; akhil.goyal@nxp.com; Anoob 
> Joseph <anoobj@marvell.com>
> Cc: bernard.iremonger@intel.com; konstantin.ananyev@intel.com; 
> praveen.shetty@intel.com
> Subject: [EXT] [PATCH v1] examples/ipsec-secgw: resolve coverity issue

[Anoob] I believe Thomas insists on explaining the issue that you are trying to fix rather than stating "resolve coverity issue" (which is too generic). So I guess you can remove all such references to coverity and retain rest of your description.
 
> 
> External Email
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> Function create_ipsec_esp_flow returns a negative number in case of 
> any failure. But passing negative number to strerror is causing the coverity issue.
> In case of failure, displaying exact error message to console is 
> handled in create_ipsec_esp_flow function.So it is not required to 
> print the error message again using strerror.
> This patch will remove the unnecessary calling of strerror function to 
> fix the coverity issue.
> 
> Coverity issue: 357691
> Fixes: 6738c0a95695 ("examples/ipsec-secgw: support flow director")
> Cc: praveen.shetty@intel.com
> 
> Signed-off-by: Praveen Shetty <praveen.shetty@intel.com>
> ---
>  examples/ipsec-secgw/sa.c | 3 +--
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 2 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/examples/ipsec-secgw/sa.c b/examples/ipsec-secgw/sa.c 
> index
> e3a1a5aff..632482176 100644
> --- a/examples/ipsec-secgw/sa.c
> +++ b/examples/ipsec-secgw/sa.c
> @@ -1223,8 +1223,7 @@ sa_add_rules(struct sa_ctx *sa_ctx, const struct 
> ipsec_sa entries[],
>  			rc = create_ipsec_esp_flow(sa);
>  			if (rc != 0)
>  				RTE_LOG(ERR, IPSEC_ESP,
> -					"create_ipsec_esp_flow() failed %s\n",
> -					strerror(rc));
> +					"create_ipsec_esp_flow() failed\n");
>  		}
>  		print_one_sa_rule(sa, inbound);
>  	}
> --
> 2.17.1
diff mbox series

Patch

diff --git a/examples/ipsec-secgw/sa.c b/examples/ipsec-secgw/sa.c
index e3a1a5aff..632482176 100644
--- a/examples/ipsec-secgw/sa.c
+++ b/examples/ipsec-secgw/sa.c
@@ -1223,8 +1223,7 @@  sa_add_rules(struct sa_ctx *sa_ctx, const struct ipsec_sa entries[],
 			rc = create_ipsec_esp_flow(sa);
 			if (rc != 0)
 				RTE_LOG(ERR, IPSEC_ESP,
-					"create_ipsec_esp_flow() failed %s\n",
-					strerror(rc));
+					"create_ipsec_esp_flow() failed\n");
 		}
 		print_one_sa_rule(sa, inbound);
 	}