On 4/22/2021 8:12 AM, Min Hu (Connor) wrote:
> From: Chengchang Tang <tangchengch...@huawei.com>
>
> The socket ID entered by user is cast to an unsigned integer. However,
> the value may be an illegal negative value, which may cause some
> problems. In this case, an error should be returned.
>
+1 to fix
> In addition, the socket ID may be an invalid positive number, which is
> also processed in this patch.
>
> Fixes: 2efb58cbab6e ("bond: new link bonding library")
> Cc: sta...@dpdk.org
>
> Signed-off-by: Chengchang Tang <tangchengch...@huawei.com>
> Signed-off-by: Min Hu (Connor) <humi...@huawei.com>
> ---
> drivers/net/bonding/rte_eth_bond_args.c | 4 ++--
> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/net/bonding/rte_eth_bond_args.c
> b/drivers/net/bonding/rte_eth_bond_args.c
> index 8c5f90d..bcc0fe3 100644
> --- a/drivers/net/bonding/rte_eth_bond_args.c
> +++ b/drivers/net/bonding/rte_eth_bond_args.c
> @@ -207,12 +207,12 @@ bond_ethdev_parse_socket_id_kvarg(const char *key
> __rte_unused,
> return -1;
>
> errno = 0;
> - socket_id = (uint8_t)strtol(value, &endptr, 10);
> + socket_id = strtol(value, &endptr, 10);
'strtol()' returns 'long int', but implicitly casting it to 'int'. My concern is
if this cause a static analysis tool warning.
What do you think to have 'socket_id' type as 'long int'?
> if (*endptr != 0 || errno != 0)
> return -1;
>
> /* validate socket id value */
> - if (socket_id >= 0) {
> + if (socket_id >= 0 && socket_id < RTE_MAX_NUMA_NODES) {>
> *(uint8_t *)extra_args = (uint8_t)socket_id;
Here there is an assumption that RTE_MAX_NUMA_NODES will be less than
'UCHAR_MAX', perhaps it can be good to add a check to verify this assumption.
> return 0;
> }
>
