> From: Dengdui Huang [mailto:huangdeng...@huawei.com] > Sent: Thursday, 27 March 2025 10.01 > > The worker_id may come from user input. > So it is necessary to verify it. > > Fixes: a95d70547c57 ("eal: factorize lcore main loop") > Cc: sta...@dpdk.org > > Signed-off-by: Dengdui Huang <huangdeng...@huawei.com> > --- > lib/eal/common/eal_common_launch.c | 3 +++ > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/lib/eal/common/eal_common_launch.c > b/lib/eal/common/eal_common_launch.c > index 5320c3bd3c..76313d5cdf 100644 > --- a/lib/eal/common/eal_common_launch.c > +++ b/lib/eal/common/eal_common_launch.c > @@ -35,6 +35,9 @@ rte_eal_remote_launch(lcore_function_t *f, void *arg, > unsigned int worker_id) > { > int rc = -EBUSY; >
Also check the lcore_id: + if (unlikely(lcore_id >= RTE_MAX_LCORE)) + return -EINVAL; + > + if (!rte_lcore_has_role(worker_id, ROLE_RTE)) > + return -EINVAL; > + Although rte_lcore_has_role() checks the lcore_id and returns -EINVAL if invalid, "if (!-EINVAL))" will not take the branch to return -EINVAL here. So this check alone does not suffice. You could change it to "if (rte_lcore_has_role(worker_id, ROLE_RTE) <= 0) return -EINVAL;". However, I prefer the separate lcore_id check, as mentioned above, rather than changing this check. > /* Check if the worker is in 'WAIT' state. Use acquire order > * since 'state' variable is used as the guard variable. > */ > -- > 2.33.0 <feature creep> While you are at it, please also add "if (unlikely(lcore_id >= RTE_MAX_LCORE)) return -EINVAL;" checks in the other functions in eal_common_lcore.c where lcore_id comes from user input and the check is missing. </feature creep>
