net/bonding: fix Segfault when eal thread executing nic‘s lsc event for mode 4
Checks
Context |
Check |
Description |
ci/Intel-compilation |
fail
|
apply issues
|
Commit Message
When the number of slave slave devices exceeds 8, it will cause the array subscript to cross the boundary.
---
drivers/net/bonding/rte_eth_bond_8023ad.c | 4 ++--
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
--
Comments
On 3/6/2019 3:42 AM, Zhaohui (zhaohui, Polestar) wrote:
> When the number of slave slave devices exceeds 8, it will cause the array
> subscript to cross the boundary.
>
> ---
> drivers/net/bonding/rte_eth_bond_8023ad.c | 4 ++--
> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/net/bonding/rte_eth_bond_8023ad.c
> b/drivers/net/bonding/rte_eth_bond_8023ad.c
> index f6f8b28..b5589c7 100644
> --- a/drivers/net/bonding/rte_eth_bond_8023ad.c
> +++ b/drivers/net/bonding/rte_eth_bond_8023ad.c
> @@ -920,8 +920,8 @@ static void selection_logic (struct bond_dev_private
> *internals, uint8_t slave_id
> struct port *agg, *port;
> uint16_t slaves_count, new_agg_id, i, j = 0;
> uint16_t *slaves;
> - uint64_t agg_bandwidth[8] = {0};
> - uint64_t agg_count[8] = {0};
> + uint64_t agg_bandwidth[RTE_MAX_ETHPORTS] = {0};
> + uint64_t agg_count[RTE_MAX_ETHPORTS] = {0};
Patch doesn't apply clearly but I think the intention in the fix is clear.
Is there any specific reason to pick the number '8'?
Also this function gets 'uint8_t slave_id' as argument, if this is port_is,
should it be uint16_t?
> uint16_t default_slave = 0;
> uint8_t mode_count_id, mode_band_id;
> struct rte_eth_link link_info;
> --
On 3/19/19 1:37 PM, Ferruh Yigit wrote:
> On 3/6/2019 3:42 AM, Zhaohui (zhaohui, Polestar) wrote:
>> When the number of slave slave devices exceeds 8, it will cause the array
>> subscript to cross the boundary.
>>
>> ---
>> drivers/net/bonding/rte_eth_bond_8023ad.c | 4 ++--
>> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/net/bonding/rte_eth_bond_8023ad.c
>> b/drivers/net/bonding/rte_eth_bond_8023ad.c
>> index f6f8b28..b5589c7 100644
>> --- a/drivers/net/bonding/rte_eth_bond_8023ad.c
>> +++ b/drivers/net/bonding/rte_eth_bond_8023ad.c
>> @@ -920,8 +920,8 @@ static void selection_logic (struct bond_dev_private
>> *internals, uint8_t slave_id
>> struct port *agg, *port;
>> uint16_t slaves_count, new_agg_id, i, j = 0;
>> uint16_t *slaves;
>> - uint64_t agg_bandwidth[8] = {0};
>> - uint64_t agg_count[8] = {0};
>> + uint64_t agg_bandwidth[RTE_MAX_ETHPORTS] = {0};
>> + uint64_t agg_count[RTE_MAX_ETHPORTS] = {0};
>
> Patch doesn't apply clearly but I think the intention in the fix is clear.
Zhaohui,
Has this been an actual problem in practice? I ask because the number
of possible slaves for the bonding drivers appears to be RTE_MAX_ETHPORTS.
I suspect people typically have far fewer slaves on a bonding device in
practice.
> Is there any specific reason to pick the number '8'?
I suspect someone guessed this was the maximum reasonable number of
slaves.
> Also this function gets 'uint8_t slave_id' as argument, if this is port_is,
> should it be uint16_t?
It probably was never completely changed when the DPDK port id changed
from uint8 to uint16.
>
>> uint16_t default_slave = 0;
>> uint8_t mode_count_id, mode_band_id;
>> struct rte_eth_link link_info;
>> --
>
@@ -920,8 +920,8 @@ static void selection_logic (struct bond_dev_private *internals, uint8_t slave_id
struct port *agg, *port;
uint16_t slaves_count, new_agg_id, i, j = 0;
uint16_t *slaves;
- uint64_t agg_bandwidth[8] = {0};
- uint64_t agg_count[8] = {0};
+ uint64_t agg_bandwidth[RTE_MAX_ETHPORTS] = {0};
+ uint64_t agg_count[RTE_MAX_ETHPORTS] = {0};
uint16_t default_slave = 0;
uint8_t mode_count_id, mode_band_id;
struct rte_eth_link link_info;