[v4] eal: fix core number validation

Message ID 1547216106-13680-1-git-send-email-hari.kumarx.vemula@intel.com
State Superseded, archived
Delegated to: Thomas Monjalon
Headers show
Series
  • [v4] eal: fix core number validation
Related show

Checks

Context Check Description
ci/intel-Performance-Testing success Performance Testing PASS
ci/mellanox-Performance-Testing success Performance Testing PASS
ci/Intel-compilation success Compilation OK
ci/checkpatch success coding style OK

Commit Message

Hari Kumar Vemula Jan. 11, 2019, 2:15 p.m.
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

David Marchand Jan. 11, 2019, 3:06 p.m. | #1
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.

Patch

diff --git a/lib/librte_eal/common/eal_common_options.c b/lib/librte_eal/common/eal_common_options.c
index 6e3a83b98..14f40c62c 100644
--- a/lib/librte_eal/common/eal_common_options.c
+++ b/lib/librte_eal/common/eal_common_options.c
@@ -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;
 		}
 
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" };
+	/* 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;