> From: Thomas Monjalon [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Monday, 20 April 2026 12.06 > > 20/04/2026 00:12, Morten Brørup: > > This addresses two bugs in mbuf operations history recording. > > > > 1. With mbuf operations history recording enabled, when allocating > mbufs > > from a mempool failed, the array of fetched mbuf pointers was not > set, but > > it was dereferenced for mbuf operations history recording anyway, > which > > would trigger a segmentation fault or cause undefined behavior. > > > > This was fixed by changing how the return value from the mempool > > allocation is checked, so the function returns early on failure, and > only > > proceeds on success. > > > > 2. When allocating a bulk of mbufs using rte_pktmbuf_alloc_bulk(), > two > > mbuf library allocation operations were recorded on the mbuf, because > the > > function calls rte_mbuf_raw_alloc_bulk() for allocation, and both > > functions record a mbuf library allocation operation. > > > > This was fixed by not recording a mbuf library allocation operation > in > > rte_pktmbuf_alloc_bulk(). > > > > Fixes: d265a24a32a4 ("mbuf: record mbuf operations history") > > Cc: [email protected] > > > > Signed-off-by: Morten Brørup <[email protected]> > [...] > > It would be better to make an explicit comparison != 0 below: > > > + if (unlikely(rc)) > > + return rc;
I would normally have done that, but decided to do it like rte_pktmbuf_alloc_bulk(). If it was a pointer, I would probably have compared != NULL regardless of conventions in the file. > > Thank you for the fixes. > > Acked-by: Thomas Monjalon <[email protected]> Thanks for the fast review response.
