Hi all,
I have rerun the failing unit test. It also recreated the report, so
that category should be passing now.
Currently, I am looking more into the ABI test that is failing on
Arch, as well as the failures with DTS tests.
I will keep this thread updated.
Thanks,
Brandon
On Mon, Jul 5, 2021 at 2:30 AM Gujjar, Abhinandan S
<abhinandan.guj...@intel.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Jerin/Akhil,
>
> Could you please review the patch?
>
> Regards
> Abhinandan
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Yigit, Ferruh <ferruh.yi...@intel.com>
> > Sent: Saturday, July 3, 2021 4:56 AM
> > To: Gujjar, Abhinandan S <abhinandan.guj...@intel.com>; dev@dpdk.org;
> > jer...@marvell.com; dpdk...@iol.unh.edu; acon...@redhat.com
> > Cc: gak...@marvell.com; Power, Ciara <ciara.po...@intel.com>; Ali Alnubani
> > <alia...@nvidia.com>
> > Subject: Re: [PATCH] test: fix crypto_op length for sessionless case
> >
> > On 7/2/2021 7:08 PM, Gujjar, Abhinandan S wrote:
> > > Hi Aaron/dpdklab,
> > >
> > > This patch's CI seems to have lot of false positive!
> > > Ferruh triggered the re-test sometime back. Now, it is reporting less.
> > > Could you please check from your end? Thanks!
> > >
> >
> > Only a malloc related unit test is still failing, which seems unrelated
> > with the
> > patch. I am triggering it one more time, third time lucky.
> >
> > Also after re-run, some tests passing now still shown as fail in the
> > patchwork
> > checks table. Isn't re-run sending the patchwork test status again?
> >
> > > Regards
> > > Abhinandan
> > >
> > >
> > >> -----Original Message-----
> > >> From: Gujjar, Abhinandan S <abhinandan.guj...@intel.com>
> > >> Sent: Wednesday, June 30, 2021 6:17 PM
> > >> To: dev@dpdk.org; jer...@marvell.com
> > >> Cc: gak...@marvell.com; Gujjar, Abhinandan S
> > >> <abhinandan.guj...@intel.com>; Power, Ciara <ciara.po...@intel.com>
> > >> Subject: [PATCH] test: fix crypto_op length for sessionless case
> > >>
> > >> Currently, private_data_offset for the sessionless is computed
> > >> wrongly which includes extra bytes added because of using
> > >> sizeof(struct
> > >> rte_crypto_sym_xform) * 2) instead of (sizeof(union
> > >> rte_event_crypto_metadata)). Due to this buffer overflow, the
> > >> corruption was leading to test application crash while freeing the ops
> > mempool.
> > >>
> > >> Fixes: 3c2c535ecfc0 ("test: add event crypto adapter auto-test")
> > >> Reported-by: ciara.po...@intel.com
> > >>
> > >> Signed-off-by: Abhinandan Gujjar <abhinandan.guj...@intel.com>
> > >> ---
> > >> app/test/test_event_crypto_adapter.c | 4 ++--
> > >> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> > >>
> > >> diff --git a/app/test/test_event_crypto_adapter.c
> > >> b/app/test/test_event_crypto_adapter.c
> > >> index f689bc1f2..688ac0b2f 100644
> > >> --- a/app/test/test_event_crypto_adapter.c
> > >> +++ b/app/test/test_event_crypto_adapter.c
> > >> @@ -229,7 +229,7 @@ test_op_forward_mode(uint8_t session_less)
> > >> first_xform = &cipher_xform;
> > >> sym_op->xform = first_xform;
> > >> uint32_t len = IV_OFFSET + MAXIMUM_IV_LENGTH +
> > >> - (sizeof(struct rte_crypto_sym_xform) * 2);
> > >> + (sizeof(union
> > >> + rte_event_crypto_metadata));
> > >> op->private_data_offset = len;
> > >> /* Fill in private data information */
> > >> rte_memcpy(&m_data.response_info, &response_info, @@ -
> > >> 424,7 +424,7 @@ test_op_new_mode(uint8_t session_less)
> > >> first_xform = &cipher_xform;
> > >> sym_op->xform = first_xform;
> > >> uint32_t len = IV_OFFSET + MAXIMUM_IV_LENGTH +
> > >> - (sizeof(struct rte_crypto_sym_xform) * 2);
> > >> + (sizeof(union
> > >> + rte_event_crypto_metadata));
> > >> op->private_data_offset = len;
> > >> /* Fill in private data information */
> > >> rte_memcpy(&m_data.response_info, &response_info,
> > >> --
> > >> 2.25.1
> > >
>
--
Brandon Lo
UNH InterOperability Laboratory
21 Madbury Rd, Suite 100, Durham, NH 03824
b...@iol.unh.edu
www.iol.unh.edu
