> From: Stephen Hemminger [mailto:step...@networkplumber.org] > Sent: Tuesday, 22 February 2022 17.03 > > On Tue, 22 Feb 2022 15:13:53 +0100 > Morten Brørup <m...@smartsharesystems.com> wrote: > > > > From: Megha Ajmera [mailto:megha.ajm...@intel.com] > > > Sent: Tuesday, 22 February 2022 14.19 > > > > > > Masking of core mask was incorrect. Instead of using 1U for > shifting, > > > it > > > should be using 1LU as the result is assigned to uint64. > > > > > > CID 375859: Potentially overflowing expression "1U << > app_main_core" > > > with > > > type "unsigned int" (32 bits, unsigned) is evaluated using 32-bit > > > arithmetic, > > > and then used in a context that expects an expression of type > > > "uint64_t" > > > (64 bits, unsigned). > > > > > > Coverity issue: 375859 > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Megha Ajmera <megha.ajm...@intel.com> > > > --- > > > examples/qos_sched/args.c | 2 +- > > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > > > > > diff --git a/examples/qos_sched/args.c b/examples/qos_sched/args.c > > > index 10ca7bea61..44f2f5640e 100644 > > > --- a/examples/qos_sched/args.c > > > +++ b/examples/qos_sched/args.c > > > @@ -433,7 +433,7 @@ app_parse_args(int argc, char **argv) > > > return -1; > > > } > > > } > > > - app_used_core_mask |= 1u << app_main_core; > > > + app_used_core_mask |= 1lu << app_main_core; > > > > Still wrong on 32 bit platforms, where long unsigned int is still 32 > bits. > > > > Use this instead: > > app_used_core_mask |= RTE_BIT64(app_main_core); > > DPDK now supports > 64 lcores. So all code using/assuming a 64 bit mask > is broken. >
Good point. Is there a TODO-list where such a general review request can be filed, or should we just file it as a system-wide bug in Bugzilla? Nonetheless, I think this one-line fix should be accepted as a short term solution. -Morten
