23/03/2023 12:58, fengchengwen: > On 2023/3/22 21:49, Thomas Monjalon wrote: > > 22/03/2023 09:53, Ferruh Yigit: > >> On 3/22/2023 1:15 AM, fengchengwen wrote: > >>> On 2023/3/21 21:50, Ferruh Yigit wrote: > >>>> On 3/17/2023 2:43 AM, fengchengwen wrote: > >>>>> On 2023/3/17 2:18, Ferruh Yigit wrote: > >>>>>> On 3/14/2023 12:48 PM, Chengwen Feng wrote: > >>>>>>> The rte_kvargs_process() was used to parse KV pairs, it also supports > >>>>>>> to parse 'only keys' (e.g. socket_id) type. And the callback function > >>>>>>> parameter 'value' is NULL when parsed 'only keys'. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> It may leads to segment fault when parse args with 'only key', this > >>>>>>> patchset fixes rest of them. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Chengwen Feng (5): > >>>>>>> app/pdump: fix segment fault when parse args > >>>>>>> net/memif: fix segment fault when parse devargs > >>>>>>> net/pcap: fix segment fault when parse devargs > >>>>>>> net/ring: fix segment fault when parse devargs > >>>>>>> net/sfc: fix segment fault when parse devargs > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Hi Chengwen, > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Did you scan all `rte_kvargs_process()` instances? > >>>>> > >>>>> No, I was just looking at the modules I was concerned about. > >>>>> I looked at it briefly, and some modules had the same problem. > >>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> And if there would be a way to tell kvargs that a value is expected (or > >>>>>> not) this checks could be done in kvargs layer, I think this also can > >>>>>> be > >>>>>> to look at. > >>>>> > >>>>> Yes, the way to tell kvargs may lead to a lot of modifys and also break > >>>>> ABI. > >>>>> I also think about just set value = "" when only exist key, It could > >>>>> perfectly solve the above segment scene. > >>>>> But it also break the API's behavior. > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> What about having a new API, like `rte_kvargs_process_extended()`, > >>>> > >>>> That gets an additional flag as parameter, which may have values like > >>>> following to indicate if key expects a value or not: > >>>> ARG_MAY_HAVE_VALUE --> "key=value" OR 'key' > >>>> ARG_WITH_VALUE --> "key=value" > >>>> ARG_NO_VALUE --> 'key' > >>>> > >>>> Default flag can be 'ARG_MAY_HAVE_VALUE' and it becomes same as > >>>> `rte_kvargs_process()`. > >>>> > >>>> This way instead of adding checks, relevant usage can be replaced by > >>>> `rte_kvargs_process_extended()`, this requires similar amount of change > >>>> but code will be more clean I think. > >>>> > >>>> Do you think does this work? > >>> > >>> Yes, it can work. > >>> > >>> But I think the introduction of new API adds some complexity. > >>> And a good API definition could more simpler. > >>> > >> > >> Other option is changing existing API, but that may be widely used and > >> changing it impacts applications, I don't think it worth. > > > > I've planned a change in kvargs API 5 years ago and never did it: > >>From doc/guides/rel_notes/deprecation.rst: > > " > > * kvargs: The function ``rte_kvargs_process`` will get a new parameter > > for returning key match count. It will ease handling of no-match case. > > " > > I think it's okay to add extra parameter for rte_kvargs_process. But it will > break ABI. > Also I notice patchset was deferred in patchwork. > > Does it mean that the new version can't accept until the 23.11 release cycle ?
It is a bit too late to take a decision in 23.03 cycle. Let's continue this discussion. We can either have some fixes in 23.07 or have an ABI breaking change in 23.11.
