diff mbox series

[v6] eal: fix core number validation

Message ID 1547727192-25126-1-git-send-email-hari.kumarx.vemula@intel.com (mailing list archive)
State Accepted, archived
Delegated to: Thomas Monjalon
Headers
Series [v6] eal: fix core number validation |

Checks

Context Check Description
ci/checkpatch success coding style OK
ci/mellanox-Performance-Testing success Performance Testing PASS
ci/intel-Performance-Testing success Performance Testing PASS
ci/Intel-compilation success Compilation OK

Commit Message

Hari Kumar Vemula Jan. 17, 2019, 12:13 p.m. UTC 
  When incorrect core value or range provided,
as part of -l command line option, a crash occurs.

Added valid range checks to fix the crash.

Added ut check for negative core values.
Added unit test case for invalid core number range.

Fixes: d888cb8b9613 ("eal: add core list input format")
Cc: stable@dpdk.org

Signed-off-by: Hari Kumar Vemula <hari.kumarx.vemula@intel.com>
Reviewed-by: David Marchand <david.marchand@redhat.com>
--
v6: Changed testcase order
v5: Corrected unit test case for -l option
v4: Used RTE_MAX_LCORE for max core check
v3: Added unit test cases for invalid core number range
v2: Replace strtoul with strtol
    Modified log message
---
 lib/librte_eal/common/eal_common_options.c |  9 +++-
 test/test/test_eal_flags.c                 | 61 ++++++++++++++--------
 2 files changed, 45 insertions(+), 25 deletions(-)

Comments

Bruce Richardson Jan. 17, 2019, 12:19 p.m. UTC | #1 
On Thu, Jan 17, 2019 at 12:13:12PM +0000, Hari Kumar Vemula wrote:
> When incorrect core value or range provided,
> as part of -l command line option, a crash occurs.
> 
> Added valid range checks to fix the crash.
> 
> Added ut check for negative core values.
> Added unit test case for invalid core number range.
> 
> Fixes: d888cb8b9613 ("eal: add core list input format")
> Cc: stable@dpdk.org
> 
> Signed-off-by: Hari Kumar Vemula <hari.kumarx.vemula@intel.com>
> Reviewed-by: David Marchand <david.marchand@redhat.com>
> --
> v6: Changed testcase order
> v5: Corrected unit test case for -l option
> v4: Used RTE_MAX_LCORE for max core check
> v3: Added unit test cases for invalid core number range
> v2: Replace strtoul with strtol
>     Modified log message
> ---
>  lib/librte_eal/common/eal_common_options.c |  9 +++-
>  test/test/test_eal_flags.c                 | 61 ++++++++++++++--------
>  2 files changed, 45 insertions(+), 25 deletions(-)
> 
Is this patch related to, or does it fix Bugzilla #19?

https://bugs.dpdk.org/show_bug.cgi?id=19

/Bruce
David Marchand Jan. 17, 2019, 12:32 p.m. UTC | #2 
On Thu, Jan 17, 2019 at 1:19 PM Bruce Richardson <bruce.richardson@intel.com>
wrote:

> On Thu, Jan 17, 2019 at 12:13:12PM +0000, Hari Kumar Vemula wrote:
> > When incorrect core value or range provided,
> > as part of -l command line option, a crash occurs.
> >
> > Added valid range checks to fix the crash.
> >
> > Added ut check for negative core values.
> > Added unit test case for invalid core number range.
> >
> > Fixes: d888cb8b9613 ("eal: add core list input format")
> > Cc: stable@dpdk.org
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Hari Kumar Vemula <hari.kumarx.vemula@intel.com>
> > Reviewed-by: David Marchand <david.marchand@redhat.com>
> > --
> > v6: Changed testcase order
> > v5: Corrected unit test case for -l option
> > v4: Used RTE_MAX_LCORE for max core check
> > v3: Added unit test cases for invalid core number range
> > v2: Replace strtoul with strtol
> >     Modified log message
> > ---
> >  lib/librte_eal/common/eal_common_options.c |  9 +++-
> >  test/test/test_eal_flags.c                 | 61 ++++++++++++++--------
> >  2 files changed, 45 insertions(+), 25 deletions(-)
> >
> Is this patch related to, or does it fix Bugzilla #19?
>
> https://bugs.dpdk.org/show_bug.cgi?id=19


Separate issue, from my pov.
I would say the issue happens with a dpdk process that has no cpu available
wrt CONFIG_RTE_MAX_CORES.
eal_auto_detect_cores() then removes all cores from cfg->lcore_role[], then
eal_adjust_config() an incorrect master lcore is chosen at
cfg->master_lcore = rte_get_next_lcore(-1, 0, 0); ?
Thomas Monjalon Jan. 17, 2019, 4:31 p.m. UTC | #3 
17/01/2019 13:13, Hari Kumar Vemula:
> When incorrect core value or range provided,
> as part of -l command line option, a crash occurs.
> 
> Added valid range checks to fix the crash.
> 
> Added ut check for negative core values.
> Added unit test case for invalid core number range.
> 
> Fixes: d888cb8b9613 ("eal: add core list input format")
> Cc: stable@dpdk.org
> 
> Signed-off-by: Hari Kumar Vemula <hari.kumarx.vemula@intel.com>
> Reviewed-by: David Marchand <david.marchand@redhat.com>

Applied, thanks
diff mbox series

Patch

diff --git a/lib/librte_eal/common/eal_common_options.c b/lib/librte_eal/common/eal_common_options.c
index 6e3a83b98..14f40c62c 100644
--- a/lib/librte_eal/common/eal_common_options.c
+++ b/lib/librte_eal/common/eal_common_options.c
@@ -592,7 +592,9 @@  eal_parse_corelist(const char *corelist)
 		if (*corelist == '\0')
 			return -1;
 		errno = 0;
-		idx = strtoul(corelist, &end, 10);
+		idx = strtol(corelist, &end, 10);
+		if (idx < 0 || idx >= (int)cfg->lcore_count)
+			return -1;
 		if (errno || end == NULL)
 			return -1;
 		while (isblank(*end))
@@ -1103,6 +1105,7 @@  eal_parse_common_option(int opt, const char *optarg,
 {
 	static int b_used;
 	static int w_used;
+	struct rte_config *cfg = rte_eal_get_configuration();
 
 	switch (opt) {
 	/* blacklist */
@@ -1145,7 +1148,9 @@  eal_parse_common_option(int opt, const char *optarg,
 	/* corelist */
 	case 'l':
 		if (eal_parse_corelist(optarg) < 0) {
-			RTE_LOG(ERR, EAL, "invalid core list\n");
+			RTE_LOG(ERR, EAL,
+				"invalid core list, please check core numbers are in [0, %u] range\n",
+					cfg->lcore_count-1);
 			return -1;
 		}
 
diff --git a/test/test/test_eal_flags.c b/test/test/test_eal_flags.c
index 2acab9d69..e3a60c7ae 100644
--- a/test/test/test_eal_flags.c
+++ b/test/test/test_eal_flags.c
@@ -18,6 +18,7 @@ 
 #include <sys/file.h>
 #include <limits.h>
 
+#include <rte_per_lcore.h>
 #include <rte_debug.h>
 #include <rte_string_fns.h>
 
@@ -477,40 +478,50 @@  test_missing_c_flag(void)
 				"-n", "3", "-l", "1," };
 	const char *argv10[] = { prgname, prefix, mp_flag,
 				 "-n", "3", "-l", "1#2" };
+	/* core number is negative value */
+	const char * const argv11[] = { prgname, prefix, mp_flag,
+				"-n", "3", "-l", "-5" };
+	const char * const argv12[] = { prgname, prefix, mp_flag,
+				"-n", "3", "-l", "-5-7" };
+	/* core number is maximum value */
+	const char * const argv13[] = { prgname, prefix, mp_flag,
+				"-n", "3", "-l", RTE_STR(RTE_MAX_LCORE) };
+	const char * const argv14[] = { prgname, prefix, mp_flag,
+				"-n", "3", "-l", "1-"RTE_STR(RTE_MAX_LCORE) };
 	/* sanity check test - valid corelist value */
-	const char *argv11[] = { prgname, prefix, mp_flag,
+	const char * const argv15[] = { prgname, prefix, mp_flag,
 				 "-n", "3", "-l", "1-2,3" };
 
 	/* --lcores flag but no lcores value */
-	const char *argv12[] = { prgname, prefix, mp_flag,
+	const char * const argv16[] = { prgname, prefix, mp_flag,
 				 "-n", "3", "--lcores" };
-	const char *argv13[] = { prgname, prefix, mp_flag,
+	const char * const argv17[] = { prgname, prefix, mp_flag,
 				 "-n", "3", "--lcores", " " };
 	/* bad lcores value */
-	const char *argv14[] = { prgname, prefix, mp_flag,
+	const char * const argv18[] = { prgname, prefix, mp_flag,
 				 "-n", "3", "--lcores", "1-3-5" };
-	const char *argv15[] = { prgname, prefix, mp_flag,
+	const char * const argv19[] = { prgname, prefix, mp_flag,
 				 "-n", "3", "--lcores", "0-1,,2" };
-	const char *argv16[] = { prgname, prefix, mp_flag,
+	const char * const argv20[] = { prgname, prefix, mp_flag,
 				 "-n", "3", "--lcores", "0-,1" };
-	const char *argv17[] = { prgname, prefix, mp_flag,
+	const char * const argv21[] = { prgname, prefix, mp_flag,
 				 "-n", "3", "--lcores", "(0-,2-4)" };
-	const char *argv18[] = { prgname, prefix, mp_flag,
+	const char * const argv22[] = { prgname, prefix, mp_flag,
 				 "-n", "3", "--lcores", "(-1,2)" };
-	const char *argv19[] = { prgname, prefix, mp_flag,
+	const char * const argv23[] = { prgname, prefix, mp_flag,
 				 "-n", "3", "--lcores", "(2-4)@(2-4-6)" };
-	const char *argv20[] = { prgname, prefix, mp_flag,
+	const char * const argv24[] = { prgname, prefix, mp_flag,
 				 "-n", "3", "--lcores", "(a,2)" };
-	const char *argv21[] = { prgname, prefix, mp_flag,
+	const char * const argv25[] = { prgname, prefix, mp_flag,
 				 "-n", "3", "--lcores", "1-3@(1,3)" };
-	const char *argv22[] = { prgname, prefix, mp_flag,
+	const char * const argv26[] = { prgname, prefix, mp_flag,
 				 "-n", "3", "--lcores", "3@((1,3)" };
-	const char *argv23[] = { prgname, prefix, mp_flag,
+	const char * const argv27[] = { prgname, prefix, mp_flag,
 				 "-n", "3", "--lcores", "(4-7)=(1,3)" };
-	const char *argv24[] = { prgname, prefix, mp_flag,
+	const char * const argv28[] = { prgname, prefix, mp_flag,
 				 "-n", "3", "--lcores", "[4-7]@(1,3)" };
 	/* sanity check of tests - valid lcores value */
-	const char *argv25[] = { prgname, prefix, mp_flag,
+	const char * const argv29[] = { prgname, prefix, mp_flag,
 				 "-n", "3", "--lcores",
 				 "0-1,2@(5-7),(3-5)@(0,2),(0,6),7"};
 
@@ -538,31 +549,35 @@  test_missing_c_flag(void)
 			|| launch_proc(argv7) == 0
 			|| launch_proc(argv8) == 0
 			|| launch_proc(argv9) == 0
-			|| launch_proc(argv10) == 0) {
+			|| launch_proc(argv10) == 0
+			|| launch_proc(argv11) == 0
+			|| launch_proc(argv12) == 0
+			|| launch_proc(argv13) == 0
+			|| launch_proc(argv14) == 0) {
 		printf("Error - "
 		       "process ran without error with invalid -l flag\n");
 		return -1;
 	}
-	if (launch_proc(argv11) != 0) {
+	if (launch_proc(argv15) != 0) {
 		printf("Error - "
 		       "process did not run ok with valid corelist value\n");
 		return -1;
 	}
 
 	/* start --lcores tests */
-	if (launch_proc(argv12) == 0 || launch_proc(argv13) == 0 ||
-	    launch_proc(argv14) == 0 || launch_proc(argv15) == 0 ||
-	    launch_proc(argv16) == 0 || launch_proc(argv17) == 0 ||
+	if (launch_proc(argv16) == 0 || launch_proc(argv17) == 0 ||
 	    launch_proc(argv18) == 0 || launch_proc(argv19) == 0 ||
 	    launch_proc(argv20) == 0 || launch_proc(argv21) == 0 ||
-	    launch_proc(argv21) == 0 || launch_proc(argv22) == 0 ||
-	    launch_proc(argv23) == 0 || launch_proc(argv24) == 0) {
+	    launch_proc(argv22) == 0 || launch_proc(argv23) == 0 ||
+	    launch_proc(argv24) == 0 || launch_proc(argv25) == 0 ||
+	    launch_proc(argv26) == 0 || launch_proc(argv27) == 0 ||
+	    launch_proc(argv28) == 0) {
 		printf("Error - "
 		       "process ran without error with invalid --lcore flag\n");
 		return -1;
 	}
 
-	if (launch_proc(argv25) != 0) {
+	if (launch_proc(argv29) != 0) {
 		printf("Error - "
 		       "process did not run ok with valid corelist value\n");
 		return -1;