On Tue, 6 Aug 2019 08:19:01 +0000 Matan Azrad <ma...@mellanox.com> wrote:
> From: Stephen Hemminger > > On Sun, 4 Aug 2019 08:31:54 +0000 > > Matan Azrad <ma...@mellanox.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > /* convert parameter to a number and verify */ > > > > > > pm = strtoul(portmask, &end, 16); > > > > > > - if (end == NULL || *end != '\0' || pm == 0) > > > > > > + if (end == NULL || *end != '\0' || pm > UINT16_MAX || pm > > == 0) > > > > > > > > > > Why pm > UINT16_MAX ? should be something like > (1 << > > > > RTE_MAX_ETHPORTS) - 1. > > > > > And need to be sure pm type can hold RTE_MAX_ETHPORTS bits, > > > > otherwise port 0 may unlikely be all the time visible in the loop > > > > below. > > > > > > > > > > > > > The DPDK assumes a lot of places that unsigned long will hold a port > > mask. > > > > > > So, all are bugs, no? > > > > I don't think 32 bit build is that well tested. But yes a mask needs to > > hold 64 > > ports. > > What if someone changes RTE_MAX_ETHPORTS to be bigger than 64 in config file? > > Assume the user changes RTE_MAX_ETHPORTS to 128, and there is a valid port in > range [64, 127]. > Then, assume the failsafe sub device owns port ID 0. > > Because the mask bits are not enough to handle the above range, you will get > port 0 as valid port - bug. > > I think you need one more check to the RTE_MAX_ETHPORTS > 64 case. Not really needed. The DPDK has lots of hard coded assumptions of all ports fitting in 64 bits. Examples include testpmd/parameters.c etc. The original concept of a small set of assigned values for portid is not going to scale. It really should have been more like ifindex; something that is not used by common API's much larger range; and assigned purely sequentially. The API's should all be using names, but the DPDK port naming is also a mess...
