Hi Shally, Tomasz,
> > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > From: Jozwiak, TomaszX
> > > > > Sent: Monday, May 20, 2019 2:26 PM
> > > > > To: dev@dpdk.org; Trahe, Fiona <fiona.tr...@intel.com>; Jozwiak,
> > > > > TomaszX <tomaszx.jozw...@intel.com>; shal...@marvell.com;
> > > > > sta...@dpdk.org
> > > > > Subject: [PATCH] app/test-compress-perf: fix reliance on integer
> > > > > endianness
> > > > >
> > > > > This patch fixes coverity issue:
> > > > > Reliance on integer endianness (INCOMPATIBLE_CAST) in
> > > > parse_window_sz
> > > > > function.
> > > > >
> > > > > Coverity issue: 328524
> > > > > Fixes: e0b6287c035d ("app/compress-perf: add parser")
> > > > > Cc: sta...@dpdk.org
> > > > >
> > > > > Signed-off-by: Tomasz Jozwiak <tomaszx.jozw...@intel.com>
> > > > > ---
> > > > > app/test-compress-perf/comp_perf_options_parse.c | 4 +++-
> > > > > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > > > >
> > > > > diff --git a/app/test-compress-perf/comp_perf_options_parse.c
> > > > > b/app/test-compress- perf/comp_perf_options_parse.c index
> > > > > 2fb6fb4..56ca580 100644
> > > > > --- a/app/test-compress-perf/comp_perf_options_parse.c
> > > > > +++ b/app/test-compress-perf/comp_perf_options_parse.c
> > > > > @@ -364,13 +364,15 @@ parse_max_num_sgl_segs(struct
> > > > comp_test_data
> > > > > *test_data, const char *arg) static int parse_window_sz(struct
> > > > > comp_test_data *test_data, const char *arg) {
> > > > > - int ret = parse_uint16_t((uint16_t *)&test_data->window_sz,
> > > > > arg);
> > > > > + uint16_t tmp;
> > > > > + int ret = parse_uint16_t(&tmp, arg);
> > > > >
> > > > > if (ret) {
> > > > > RTE_LOG(ERR, USER1, "Failed to parse window size\n");
> > > > > return -1;
> > > > > }
> > > > >
> > > > > + test_data->window_sz = (int)tmp;
> > > > > return 0;
> > > > > }
> > > > [Fiona] I expect this fixes this coverity issue - but will it result in
> > > > another
> > one?
> > > > window_sz on the xform is uint8_t - so this int will get truncated
> > > > later, and there's no cast done at that point.
> > > > Would it be better to add a new parse_uint8_t fn and change
> > > > test-data-
> > > > >window_sz to a unit8_t?
> > > > Or add that cast?
> > > [Tomek] I measn it's ok. There's a check inside
> > > comp_perf_check_capabilities function.
> > > If the value from test_data->window_sz > cap->window_size we have a
> > fail.
> > > Also during parsing there's a check is value from command line between
> > > 0 and UINT16_MAX, so in my opinion all cases are tested. The point is
> > > there's only one place where we're parsing uint8_t value.
> > > parse_uint8_t function will be especially for that.
> > [Shally] What is window_sz in test data ?is it base 2 log of (actual window
> > length) or actual window length in bytes? lib spec mention this as struct
> > rte_param_log2_range, so If test window size is actual window length in
> > bytes then I assume test perf should check for test_data->window_sz > 2
> > pow cap->window_size but that doesn't look like the case.
> > So if it is log value, then coding wise typecasting here doesn't look right.
> > Though it add need for extra function to parse_uint8, but that looks like
> > cleaner approach to use.
> [Tomek] I mean it's log 2 (please take a look at help usage function in
> comp_perf_options_parse.c:37
>
> " --window-sz N: base two log value of compression window size\n"
> " (e.g.: 15 => 32k, default: max supported by
> PMD)\n"
>
> I mean it's ok, still. We have many types in command line and can be much
> more in the future. The idea
> is to parse them into a sort of common range value first ( it should be max
> range for all digital command
> line options - in our case there's uint16 or uint32_t) even if it's shorter
> like uint8_t or etc. We store
> these values in comp_test_data structure first. Next we check the ranges each
> of them. In case of
> window_sz this test is in comp_perf_check_capabilities function. That
> approach reduce a set of parsing
> functions we needed. Of course we can create separate parsing function for
> each of command line type
> value, but is this really needed ? :D
> Please let me know your thoughts - if this new parsing function will clear
> the code - I'll add this in v2
[Fiona] ok, I reviewed again and see I'd misunderstood.
The param being parsed is intentionally not being stored in test_data struct as
uint8_t, but as
an int because it uses -1 as a default value. And there are range checks on the
input, so an invalid value will never be passed to the PMD.
So I'm ok with the fix as is - it resolves the coverity issues reported on the
param parsing.
However there's a second issue, which coverity is likely to throw up after the
above fix is applied - when
the test_data value is later passed to the PMD, it should have a cast from int
to unit8_t.
But that's a separate issue, not referred to by this coverity report, so we'll
send a separate patch for it.
@Shally, are you ok with this?
