On Tue, Nov 14, 2023 at 09:34:33AM -0800, Tyler Retzlaff wrote: > On Tue, Nov 14, 2023 at 09:32:48AM -0800, Tyler Retzlaff wrote: > > On Tue, Nov 14, 2023 at 08:50:17PM +0800, Jie Hai wrote: > > > On 2023/11/14 1:09, Tyler Retzlaff wrote: > > > >On Mon, Nov 13, 2023 at 06:45:29PM +0800, Jie Hai wrote: > > > >>Multiple threads calling the same function may cause condition > > > >>race issues, which often leads to abnormal behavior and can cause > > > >>more serious vulnerabilities such as abnormal termination, denial > > > >>of service, and compromised data integrity. > > > >> > > > >>The strtok() is non-reentrant, it is better to replace it with a > > > >>reentrant function. > > > > > > > >could you please use strtok_s instead of strtok_r the former is part of > > > >the C11 standard the latter is not. > > > > > > > >thanks! > > > > > > > Hi, Tyler Retzlaff > > > > > > Thanks for your comment. > > > > > > For the use of strtok_s, I have consulted some documents, see > > > https://en.cppreference.com/w/c/string/byte/strtok > > > It says > > > "As with all bounds-checked functions, strtok_s only guaranteed to be > > > available if __STDC_LIB_EXT1__ is defined by the implementation and if > > > the user defines __STDC_WANT_LIB_EXT1__ to the integer constant 1 before > > > including <string.h>. > > > " > > > > > > I use strtok_s with "#ifdef __STDC_LIB_EXT1__ ... #endif" around and > > > compiled > > > locally and found that __STDC_LIB_EXT1__ was not defined, so the related > > > code was not called. I'm afraid there's a problem with this > > > modification. > > > > > > Am I using strtok_s wrong? > > > > no i overlooked that it is optional my fault sorry. > > > > since there is no portable strtok_r i'm going to have to agree with others > > that only places where you actually need reentrant strtok be converted to > > strtok_r. > > > > for windows i think we'll either need to introduce an abstracted strtok_r > > name for portability or something in the rte_ namespace (dependent on > > what other revieweres would prefer) > > just as a follow up here maybe it would be optimal if we could use > strtok_s *if* we test that the toolchain makes it available and if not > provide a mapping of strtok_s -> strtok_r.
just a final follow up, i can see that we already have a rte_strerror here to do the replace with reentrant dance. it is probably good to follow the already established pattern for this and have a rte_strtok. what do others think? > > > > thanks! > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > Jie Hai > > > >> > > > >>Jie Hai (21): > > > >> app/graph: replace strtok with strtok_r > > > >> app/test-bbdev: replace strtok with strtok_r > > > >> app/test-compress-perf: replace strtok with strtok_r > > > >> app/test-crypto-perf: replace strtok with strtok_r > > > >> app/test-dma-perf: replace strtok with strtok_r > > > >> app/test-fib: replace strtok with strtok_r > > > >> app/dpdk-test-flow-perf: replace strtok with strtok_r > > > >> app/test-mldev: replace strtok with strtok_r > > > >> lib/dmadev: replace strtok with strtok_r > > > >> lib/eal: replace strtok with strtok_r > > > >> lib/ethdev: replace strtok with strtok_r > > > >> lib/eventdev: replace strtok with strtok_r > > > >> lib/telemetry: replace strtok with strtok_r > > > >> lib/telemetry: replace strtok with strtok_r > > > >> bus/fslmc: replace strtok with strtok_r > > > >> common/cnxk: replace strtok with strtok_r > > > >> event/cnxk: replace strtok with strtok_r > > > >> net/ark: replace strtok with strtok_r > > > >> raw/cnxk_gpio: replace strtok with strtok_r > > > >> examples/l2fwd-crypto: replace strtok with strtok_r > > > >> examples/vhost: replace strtok with strtok_r > > > >> > > > >> app/graph/graph.c | 5 ++- > > > >> app/graph/utils.c | 15 +++++--- > > > >> app/test-bbdev/test_bbdev_vector.c | 25 +++++++----- > > > >> .../comp_perf_options_parse.c | 16 ++++---- > > > >> app/test-crypto-perf/cperf_options_parsing.c | 16 ++++---- > > > >> .../cperf_test_vector_parsing.c | 10 +++-- > > > >> app/test-dma-perf/main.c | 13 ++++--- > > > >> app/test-fib/main.c | 10 ++--- > > > >> app/test-flow-perf/main.c | 22 ++++++----- > > > >> app/test-mldev/ml_options.c | 18 ++++----- > > > >> drivers/bus/fslmc/fslmc_bus.c | 5 ++- > > > >> drivers/bus/fslmc/portal/dpaa2_hw_dpio.c | 4 +- > > > >> drivers/common/cnxk/cnxk_telemetry_nix.c | 12 +++--- > > > >> drivers/event/cnxk/cnxk_eventdev.c | 10 +++-- > > > >> drivers/event/cnxk/cnxk_tim_evdev.c | 11 +++--- > > > >> drivers/net/ark/ark_pktchkr.c | 10 ++--- > > > >> drivers/net/ark/ark_pktgen.c | 10 ++--- > > > >> drivers/raw/cnxk_gpio/cnxk_gpio.c | 6 +-- > > > >> examples/l2fwd-crypto/main.c | 6 +-- > > > >> examples/vhost/main.c | 3 +- > > > >> lib/dmadev/rte_dmadev.c | 4 +- > > > >> lib/eal/common/eal_common_memory.c | 8 ++-- > > > >> lib/ethdev/rte_ethdev_telemetry.c | 6 ++- > > > >> lib/eventdev/rte_event_eth_rx_adapter.c | 38 +++++++++---------- > > > >> lib/eventdev/rte_eventdev.c | 18 ++++----- > > > >> lib/security/rte_security.c | 3 +- > > > >> lib/telemetry/telemetry.c | 5 ++- > > > >> 27 files changed, 169 insertions(+), 140 deletions(-) > > > >> > > > >>-- > > > >>2.30.0 > > > >.
