> -----Original Message-----
> From: Burakov, Anatoly <anatoly.bura...@intel.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2020 12:01 PM
> To: Govindharajan, Hariprasad <hariprasad.govindhara...@intel.com>; Lu,
> Wenzhuo <wenzhuo...@intel.com>; Wu, Jingjing <jingjing...@intel.com>;
> Iremonger, Bernard <bernard.iremon...@intel.com>; Mcnamara, John
> <john.mcnam...@intel.com>; Kovacevic, Marko
> <marko.kovace...@intel.com>
> Cc: dev@dpdk.org; Yigit, Ferruh <ferruh.yi...@intel.com>;
> step...@networkplumber.org; david.march...@redhat.com
> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v7] app/testpmd: add portlist option
>
> On 10-Feb-20 5:19 PM, Hariprasad Govindharajan wrote:
> > In current version, we are setting the ports using portmask. With
> > portmask, we can use only upto 64 ports. This portlist option enables
> > the user to use more than 64 ports.
> > Now we can specify the ports in 2 different ways
> > - Using portmask (-p [0x]nnn): mask must be in hex format
> > - Using portlist in the following format
> > --portlist <p1>[-p2][,p3[-p4],...]
> >
> > --portmask 0x2 is same as --portlist 1
> > --portmask 0x3 is same as --portlist 0-1
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Hariprasad Govindharajan
> > <hariprasad.govindhara...@intel.com>
> > ---
> > v7:
> > moved the port validation outside the parser function.
> > added meaningful comments describing the new functionality.
> > renamed the variables with meaningful names
> >
> > v6:
> > optimized the code to check for duplicates
> >
> > v5:
> > added a check to validate the ports available before setting them.
> > also added comments in the testpmd file for the new function
> >
> > v4:
> > the parser is modified so that we don't ues 2 arrays to convert the
> > listed port values
> >
> > v3:
> > squashed the 2 patches and made it 1 patch with changes only in
> > testpmd. Also working on optmizing the parser
> >
> > v2:
> > moved the parser function to testpmd
> > ---
> > app/test-pmd/config.c | 114
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > app/test-pmd/parameters.c | 5 ++
> > app/test-pmd/testpmd.h | 3 +
> > doc/guides/testpmd_app_ug/run_app.rst | 7 +++
> > 4 files changed, 129 insertions(+)
> >
> > diff --git a/app/test-pmd/config.c b/app/test-pmd/config.c index
> > 9669cbd..962984b 100644
> > --- a/app/test-pmd/config.c
> > +++ b/app/test-pmd/config.c
> > @@ -2587,6 +2587,120 @@ set_fwd_ports_list(unsigned int *portlist,
> unsigned int nb_pt)
> > }
> > }
> >
> > +/**
> > + * Parse the user input and obtain the list of forwarding ports
> > + *
> > + * @param[in] list
> > + * String containing the user input. User can specify
> > + * in these formats 1,3,5 or 1-3 or 1-2,5 or 3,5-6.
> > + * For example, if the user wants to use all the available
> > + * 4 ports in his system, then the input can be 0-3 or 0,1,2,3.
> > + * If the user wants to use only the ports 1,2 then the input
> > + * is 1,2.
> > + * valid characters are '-' and ','
> > + * invalid chars like '.' or '#' will result in
> > + * EAL: Error - exiting with code: 1
> > + * Cause: Invalid fwd port list
> > + * @param[out] values
> > + * This array will be filled with a list of port IDs
> > + * based on the user input
> > + * Note that duplicate entries are discarded and only the first
> > + * count entries in this array are port IDs and all the rest
> > + * will contain default values
> > + * @param[in] maxsize
> > + * This parameter denotes 2 things
> > + * 1) Size of the values array
>
> I believe you meant "number", not "size".
[Govindharajan, Hariprasad] Nope. Here I meant to say the maximum size of the
values array.
>
> > + * 2) Maximum value of each element in the values array
> > + * @return
> > + * -On success, returns total count of port IDs
> > + * -On failure, returns -1.
> > + */
> > +static int
> > +parse_port_list(const char *list, unsigned int *values, int maxsize)
> > +{
> > + int count = 0;
> > + char *end = NULL;
> > + int min, max;
> > + int value, i;
> > + unsigned int marked[maxsize];
> > +
> > + for (i = 0; i < maxsize; i++)
> > + marked[i] = 0;
>
> Wouldn't marked[maxsize] = {0}; work the same?
[Govindharajan, Hariprasad] Nope. For that to work, the array size should be a
constant. Here it is a variable.
>
> > +
> > + if (list == NULL || values == NULL || maxsize < 0)
> > + return -1;
>
> You're checking if maxsize can be negative. First of all, you've already
> allocated the array with negative size by this time (the "marked[maxsize]"
> one), second, why allow negative values at all? Why not just make it
> unsigned?
>
> > +
> > + /* Remove all blank characters ahead */
> > + while (isblank(*list))
> > + list++;
>
> Why do it here when you do this first thing in the do..while loop anyway?
[Govindharajan, Hariprasad] Yes. Removed.
>
> > +
> > + min = maxsize;
>
> You're overwriting this value regardless. Why not 0? If you want to know for
> sure that the value either has or has not been modified, the conventional
> way to do this is to use INT_MAX from <limits.h>.
>
> > +
> > + do {
> > + while (isblank(*list))
> > + list++;
>
> I have a suspicion that isblank() will not return 'true' on '\0' so there's
> probably a buffer overrun here, if you try to dereference *list while going
> past '\0'.
[Govindharajan, Hariprasad] Corrected
>
> > + if (*list == '\0')
> > + return -1;
> > + errno = 0;
> > + value = strtol(list, &end, 10);
> > + if (errno || end == NULL)
> > + return -1;
> > + if (value < 0 || value >= maxsize)
> > + return -1;
> > + while (isblank(*end))
> > + end++;
> > + if (*end == '-') {
> > + min = value;
> > + } else if ((*end == ',') || (*end == '\0')) {
> > + max = value;
> > + if (min == maxsize)
> > + min = value;
> > + for (i = min; i <= max; i++) {
> > + if (count < maxsize) {
> > + if (marked[i])
> > + continue;
> > + values[count] = i;
> > + marked[i] = 1;
> > + count++;
> > + }
> > + }
> > + min = maxsize;
>
> Probably clearer to reset both to zero or INT_MAX/INT_MIN?
[Govindharajan, Hariprasad] done
>
> > + } else
> > + return -1;
> > + list = end + 1;
> > + } while (*end != '\0');
> > +
> > + if (count == 0)
> > + return -1;
> > + return count;
> > +}
> > +
> > +void
> > +parse_fwd_portlist(const char *portlist) {
> > + int portcount;
> > + unsigned int portindex[RTE_MAX_ETHPORTS];
> > + int i, valid_port_count = 0;
>
> unsigned?
[Govindharajan, Hariprasad] Changed. Initially I was comparing those 2
variables with a signed variable,
So declared them as signed as well.
>
> > +
> > + portcount = parse_port_list(portlist, portindex,
> RTE_MAX_ETHPORTS);
> > + if (portcount < 0)
> > + rte_exit(EXIT_FAILURE, "Invalid fwd port list\n");
> > +
> > + /*
> > + * Here we verify the validity of the ports
> > + * and thereby calculate the total number of
> > + * valid ports
> > + */
>
> --
> Thanks,
> Anatoly
