On 2/23/2016 12:13 PM, Bernard Iremonger wrote:
> If a bonded device is created when there are no slave devices
> there is loop in bond_ethdev_promiscous_enable() which results
> in a segmentation fault.
> I have applied a similar fix to bond_ethdev_promiscous_disable()
> where a similar loop could occur.
>
> Fixes: 2efb58cbab6e ("bond: new link bonding library")
> Signed-off-by: Bernard Iremonger <bernard.iremonger at intel.com>
> ---
> drivers/net/bonding/rte_eth_bond_pmd.c | 6 ++++--
> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/net/bonding/rte_eth_bond_pmd.c
> b/drivers/net/bonding/rte_eth_bond_pmd.c
> index b63c886..78972fc 100644
> --- a/drivers/net/bonding/rte_eth_bond_pmd.c
> +++ b/drivers/net/bonding/rte_eth_bond_pmd.c
> @@ -1870,7 +1870,8 @@ bond_ethdev_promiscuous_enable(struct rte_eth_dev
> *eth_dev)
> case BONDING_MODE_TLB:
> case BONDING_MODE_ALB:
> default:
> - rte_eth_promiscuous_enable(internals->current_primary_port);
> + if (internals->slave_count > 0)
> +
> rte_eth_promiscuous_enable(internals->current_primary_port);
> }
> }
>
> @@ -1898,7 +1899,8 @@ bond_ethdev_promiscuous_disable(struct rte_eth_dev *dev)
> case BONDING_MODE_TLB:
> case BONDING_MODE_ALB:
> default:
> - rte_eth_promiscuous_disable(internals->current_primary_port);
> + if (internals->slave_count > 0)
> +
> rte_eth_promiscuous_disable(internals->current_primary_port);
> }
> }
>
>
Hi Bernard,
The reason of this crash is when there is no slave, the value of
current_primary_port is 0, which is valid port_id, is this correct?
Does it make sense, instead of slave_count check, to make default
current_primary_port value a non valid port_id, like -1, so
is_valid_port() check catches it to prevents crash? For this and any
other cases.
Thanks,
ferruh
