diff mbox

[dpdk-dev] testpmd: limit port mask bits to RTE_MAX_ETHPORTS

Message ID 1418736437-30585-1-git-send-email-bruce.richardson@intel.com (mailing list archive)
State Superseded, archived
Headers

Commit Message

Bruce Richardson Dec. 16, 2014, 1:27 p.m. UTC 
  The port mask parsing in testpmd allowed up to 64 bits to be processed,
even if RTE_MAX_ETHPORTS is set to a max of 32. Fix this by only
processing up to min(RTE_MAX_ETHPORTS,64) bits of the mask.

Signed-off-by: Bruce Richardson <bruce.richardson@intel.com>
---
 app/test-pmd/config.c | 2 +-
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

Comments

Thomas Monjalon Dec. 16, 2014, 1:40 p.m. UTC | #1 
2014-12-16 13:27, Bruce Richardson:
> The port mask parsing in testpmd allowed up to 64 bits to be processed,
> even if RTE_MAX_ETHPORTS is set to a max of 32. Fix this by only
> processing up to min(RTE_MAX_ETHPORTS,64) bits of the mask.
[...]
> -	for (i = 0; i < 64; i++) {
> +	for (i = 0; i < 64 && i < RTE_MAX_ETHPORTS; i++) {

Why not use RTE_MIN?
Bruce Richardson Dec. 16, 2014, 1:50 p.m. UTC | #2 
On Tue, Dec 16, 2014 at 02:40:09PM +0100, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> 2014-12-16 13:27, Bruce Richardson:
> > The port mask parsing in testpmd allowed up to 64 bits to be processed,
> > even if RTE_MAX_ETHPORTS is set to a max of 32. Fix this by only
> > processing up to min(RTE_MAX_ETHPORTS,64) bits of the mask.
> [...]
> > -	for (i = 0; i < 64; i++) {
> > +	for (i = 0; i < 64 && i < RTE_MAX_ETHPORTS; i++) {
> 
> Why not use RTE_MIN?
> 
> -- 
> Thomas

Because this works equally well, and the change is simpler and clearer IMHO.
However, if you feel very strongly about it, I can change it to use RTE_MIN
instead. :-)

/Bruce
Neil Horman Dec. 16, 2014, 2:09 p.m. UTC | #3 
On Tue, Dec 16, 2014 at 01:50:06PM +0000, Bruce Richardson wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 16, 2014 at 02:40:09PM +0100, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> > 2014-12-16 13:27, Bruce Richardson:
> > > The port mask parsing in testpmd allowed up to 64 bits to be processed,
> > > even if RTE_MAX_ETHPORTS is set to a max of 32. Fix this by only
> > > processing up to min(RTE_MAX_ETHPORTS,64) bits of the mask.
> > [...]
> > > -	for (i = 0; i < 64; i++) {
> > > +	for (i = 0; i < 64 && i < RTE_MAX_ETHPORTS; i++) {
> > 
> > Why not use RTE_MIN?
> > 
> > -- 
> > Thomas
> 
> Because this works equally well, and the change is simpler and clearer IMHO.
> However, if you feel very strongly about it, I can change it to use RTE_MIN
> instead. :-)
> 
> /Bruce
> 

Please do, checking the same variable for being less than 2 different values
isn't common practice.  Its common, and far more readable to use a min function
as Thomas indicates.  It also saves you doing an extra comparison every loop
iteration.

Neil
diff mbox

Patch

diff --git a/app/test-pmd/config.c b/app/test-pmd/config.c
index 69a83c2..c9d1e1c 100644
--- a/app/test-pmd/config.c
+++ b/app/test-pmd/config.c
@@ -1440,7 +1440,7 @@  set_fwd_ports_mask(uint64_t portmask)
 		return;
 	}
 	nb_pt = 0;
-	for (i = 0; i < 64; i++) {
+	for (i = 0; i < 64 && i < RTE_MAX_ETHPORTS; i++) {
 		if (! ((uint64_t)(1ULL << i) & portmask))
 			continue;
 		portlist[nb_pt++] = i;