On Wed, Apr 7, 2021 at 5:23 PM Ananyev, Konstantin
<konstantin.anan...@intel.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > 07/04/2021 13:28, Min Hu (Connor):
> > > Hi, all,
> > > Many APIs in DPDK does not check if the pointer parameter is
> > > NULL or not. For example, in 'rte_ethdev.c':
> > > int
> > > rte_eth_rx_queue_setup(uint16_t port_id, uint16_t rx_queue_id,
> > > uint16_t nb_rx_desc, unsigned int socket_id,
> > > const struct rte_eth_rxconf *rx_conf,
> > > struct rte_mempool *mp)
> > >
> > > int
> > > rte_eth_link_get(uint16_t port_id, struct rte_eth_link *eth_link)
> > >
> > > int
> > > rte_eth_stats_get(uint16_t port_id, struct rte_eth_stats *stats)
> > >
> > > int
> > > rte_eth_dev_info_get(uint16_t port_id, struct rte_eth_dev_info *dev_info)
> > >
> > > As these APIs could be used by any APPs, if the APP give NULL as
> > > the pointer parameter, segmetation default will occur.
> > >
> > > So, my question is, should we add check in the API? like that,
> > > int rte_eth_stats_get(uint16_t port_id, struct rte_eth_stats *stats)
> > > {
> > > if (stats == NULL)
> > > return -EINVAL;
> > > ...
> > > }
> > >
> > > Or, that is redundant, the parameter correctness should be guaranteed by
> > > the APP?
> > >
> > > What's your opinion? Hope for your reply.
> >
> > I remember it has been discussed in the past (many years ago),
> > and the opinion was to not clutter the code for something that
> > is a basic fault from the app.
> >
> > I don't have a strong opinion.
> > What is your opinion? Others?
>
> As I can see these are control path functions.
> So some extra formal parameters check wouldn't hurt.
> +1 from me to add them.
+1 to add more sanity checks in control path APIs
> Konstantin
>
>
