| Message ID | 1422842559-13617-4-git-send-email-cunming.liang@intel.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | Superseded, archived |
| Headers |
Return-Path: <dev-bounces@dpdk.org> X-Original-To: patchwork@dpdk.org Delivered-To: patchwork@dpdk.org Received: from [92.243.14.124] (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6F98337A4; Mon, 2 Feb 2015 03:03:07 +0100 (CET) Received: from mga14.intel.com (mga14.intel.com [192.55.52.115]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 40563377A for <dev@dpdk.org>; Mon, 2 Feb 2015 03:03:05 +0100 (CET) Received: from orsmga002.jf.intel.com ([10.7.209.21]) by fmsmga103.fm.intel.com with ESMTP; 01 Feb 2015 17:56:35 -0800 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.09,503,1418112000"; d="scan'208";a="679459096" Received: from shvmail01.sh.intel.com ([10.239.29.42]) by orsmga002.jf.intel.com with ESMTP; 01 Feb 2015 18:03:03 -0800 Received: from shecgisg004.sh.intel.com (shecgisg004.sh.intel.com [10.239.29.89]) by shvmail01.sh.intel.com with ESMTP id t1222vW0013343; Mon, 2 Feb 2015 10:02:57 +0800 Received: from shecgisg004.sh.intel.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by shecgisg004.sh.intel.com (8.13.6/8.13.6/SuSE Linux 0.8) with ESMTP id t1222r5U013693; Mon, 2 Feb 2015 10:02:55 +0800 Received: (from cliang18@localhost) by shecgisg004.sh.intel.com (8.13.6/8.13.6/Submit) id t1222rEp013689; Mon, 2 Feb 2015 10:02:53 +0800 From: Cunming Liang <cunming.liang@intel.com> To: dev@dpdk.org Date: Mon, 2 Feb 2015 10:02:25 +0800 Message-Id: <1422842559-13617-4-git-send-email-cunming.liang@intel.com> X-Mailer: git-send-email 1.7.4.1 In-Reply-To: <1422842559-13617-1-git-send-email-cunming.liang@intel.com> References: <1422491072-5114-1-git-send-email-cunming.liang@intel.com> <1422842559-13617-1-git-send-email-cunming.liang@intel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Subject: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v4 03/17] eal: fix wrong strnlen() return value in 32bit icc X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: patches and discussions about DPDK <dev.dpdk.org> List-Unsubscribe: <http://dpdk.org/ml/options/dev>, <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=unsubscribe> List-Archive: <http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/> List-Post: <mailto:dev@dpdk.org> List-Help: <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=help> List-Subscribe: <http://dpdk.org/ml/listinfo/dev>, <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=subscribe> Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org Sender: "dev" <dev-bounces@dpdk.org> |
Commit Message
Cunming Liang
Feb. 2, 2015, 2:02 a.m. UTC
The problem is that strnlen() here may return invalid value with 32bit icc.
(actually it returns it’s second parameter,e.g: sysconf(_SC_ARG_MAX)).
It starts to manifest hwen max_len parameter is > 2M and using icc –m32 –O2 (or above).
Suggested-by: Konstantin Ananyev <konstantin.ananyev@intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Cunming Liang <cunming.liang@intel.com>
---
lib/librte_eal/common/eal_common_options.c | 4 ++--
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
Comments
Hi, On 02/02/2015 03:02 AM, Cunming Liang wrote: > The problem is that strnlen() here may return invalid value with 32bit icc. > (actually it returns it’s second parameter,e.g: sysconf(_SC_ARG_MAX)). > It starts to manifest hwen max_len parameter is > 2M and using icc –m32 –O2 (or above). > > Suggested-by: Konstantin Ananyev <konstantin.ananyev@intel.com> > Signed-off-by: Cunming Liang <cunming.liang@intel.com> > --- > lib/librte_eal/common/eal_common_options.c | 4 ++-- > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/lib/librte_eal/common/eal_common_options.c b/lib/librte_eal/common/eal_common_options.c > index 29ebb6f..22d5d37 100644 > --- a/lib/librte_eal/common/eal_common_options.c > +++ b/lib/librte_eal/common/eal_common_options.c > @@ -227,7 +227,7 @@ eal_parse_corelist(const char *corelist) > /* Remove all blank characters ahead and after */ > while (isblank(*corelist)) > corelist++; > - i = strnlen(corelist, sysconf(_SC_ARG_MAX)); > + i = strnlen(corelist, PATH_MAX); > while ((i > 0) && isblank(corelist[i - 1])) > i--; > > @@ -469,7 +469,7 @@ eal_parse_lcores(const char *lcores) > /* Remove all blank characters ahead and after */ > while (isblank(*lcores)) > lcores++; > - i = strnlen(lcores, sysconf(_SC_ARG_MAX)); > + i = strnlen(lcores, PATH_MAX); > while ((i > 0) && isblank(lcores[i - 1])) > i--; > > I think PATH_MAX is not equivalent to _SC_ARG_MAX. But the main question is: why do we need to use strnlen() here instead of strlen? We can expect that argv[] pointers are always nul-terminated. Replacing them by strlen() would probably also solve the icc issue. Regards, Olivier
> -----Original Message----- > From: Olivier MATZ [mailto:olivier.matz@6wind.com] > Sent: Monday, February 09, 2015 4:00 AM > To: Liang, Cunming; dev@dpdk.org > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v4 03/17] eal: fix wrong strnlen() return value in > 32bit icc > > Hi, > > On 02/02/2015 03:02 AM, Cunming Liang wrote: > > The problem is that strnlen() here may return invalid value with 32bit icc. > > (actually it returns it’s second parameter,e.g: sysconf(_SC_ARG_MAX)). > > It starts to manifest hwen max_len parameter is > 2M and using icc –m32 –O2 > (or above). > > > > Suggested-by: Konstantin Ananyev <konstantin.ananyev@intel.com> > > Signed-off-by: Cunming Liang <cunming.liang@intel.com> > > --- > > lib/librte_eal/common/eal_common_options.c | 4 ++-- > > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/lib/librte_eal/common/eal_common_options.c > b/lib/librte_eal/common/eal_common_options.c > > index 29ebb6f..22d5d37 100644 > > --- a/lib/librte_eal/common/eal_common_options.c > > +++ b/lib/librte_eal/common/eal_common_options.c > > @@ -227,7 +227,7 @@ eal_parse_corelist(const char *corelist) > > /* Remove all blank characters ahead and after */ > > while (isblank(*corelist)) > > corelist++; > > - i = strnlen(corelist, sysconf(_SC_ARG_MAX)); > > + i = strnlen(corelist, PATH_MAX); > > while ((i > 0) && isblank(corelist[i - 1])) > > i--; > > > > @@ -469,7 +469,7 @@ eal_parse_lcores(const char *lcores) > > /* Remove all blank characters ahead and after */ > > while (isblank(*lcores)) > > lcores++; > > - i = strnlen(lcores, sysconf(_SC_ARG_MAX)); > > + i = strnlen(lcores, PATH_MAX); > > while ((i > 0) && isblank(lcores[i - 1])) > > i--; > > > > > > I think PATH_MAX is not equivalent to _SC_ARG_MAX. > > But the main question is: why do we need to use strnlen() here instead > of strlen? We can expect that argv[] pointers are always nul-terminated. > Replacing them by strlen() would probably also solve the icc issue. [LCM] You're right, here strlen() also solve icc issue and no risk for argv[]. But follows practice suggestion, keeping using those with 'n' function in DPDK is not bad. There's additional two reason to keep strnlen and PATH_MAX. 1. PATH_MAX is defined as 4096 which is enough as our input. It doesn't matter to be _SC_ARG_MAX or not. 2. strnlen and PATH_MAX already used in eal_parse_coremask, to keep the style consistent in '-l' and '--lcores'. > > Regards, > Olivier
Hi, On 02/09/2015 12:57 PM, Liang, Cunming wrote: >>> @@ -469,7 +469,7 @@ eal_parse_lcores(const char *lcores) >>> /* Remove all blank characters ahead and after */ >>> while (isblank(*lcores)) >>> lcores++; >>> - i = strnlen(lcores, sysconf(_SC_ARG_MAX)); >>> + i = strnlen(lcores, PATH_MAX); >>> while ((i > 0) && isblank(lcores[i - 1])) >>> i--; >>> >>> >> >> I think PATH_MAX is not equivalent to _SC_ARG_MAX. >> >> But the main question is: why do we need to use strnlen() here instead >> of strlen? We can expect that argv[] pointers are always nul-terminated. >> Replacing them by strlen() would probably also solve the icc issue. > [LCM] You're right, here strlen() also solve icc issue and no risk for argv[]. > But follows practice suggestion, keeping using those with 'n' function in DPDK is not bad. > There's additional two reason to keep strnlen and PATH_MAX. > 1. PATH_MAX is defined as 4096 which is enough as our input. It doesn't matter to be _SC_ARG_MAX or not. PATH_MAX is 4096 but it's not related to the maximum argument length. > 2. strnlen and PATH_MAX already used in eal_parse_coremask, to keep the style consistent in '-l' and '--lcores'. I don't think it's a valid argument. What is the problem of using strlen()? It looks it solves all the issues. Using strlen on valid strings is not a security issue. Regards, Olivier
> -----Original Message----- > From: Olivier MATZ [mailto:olivier.matz@6wind.com] > Sent: Tuesday, February 10, 2015 1:13 AM > To: Liang, Cunming; dev@dpdk.org > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v4 03/17] eal: fix wrong strnlen() return value in > 32bit icc > > Hi, > > On 02/09/2015 12:57 PM, Liang, Cunming wrote: > >>> @@ -469,7 +469,7 @@ eal_parse_lcores(const char *lcores) > >>> /* Remove all blank characters ahead and after */ > >>> while (isblank(*lcores)) > >>> lcores++; > >>> - i = strnlen(lcores, sysconf(_SC_ARG_MAX)); > >>> + i = strnlen(lcores, PATH_MAX); > >>> while ((i > 0) && isblank(lcores[i - 1])) > >>> i--; > >>> > >>> > >> > >> I think PATH_MAX is not equivalent to _SC_ARG_MAX. > >> > >> But the main question is: why do we need to use strnlen() here instead > >> of strlen? We can expect that argv[] pointers are always nul-terminated. > >> Replacing them by strlen() would probably also solve the icc issue. > > [LCM] You're right, here strlen() also solve icc issue and no risk for argv[]. > > But follows practice suggestion, keeping using those with 'n' function in DPDK is > not bad. > > There's additional two reason to keep strnlen and PATH_MAX. > > 1. PATH_MAX is defined as 4096 which is enough as our input. It doesn't matter > to be _SC_ARG_MAX or not. > > PATH_MAX is 4096 but it's not related to the maximum argument length. > > > 2. strnlen and PATH_MAX already used in eal_parse_coremask, to keep the > style consistent in '-l' and '--lcores'. > > I don't think it's a valid argument. > > What is the problem of using strlen()? It looks it solves all the > issues. Using strlen on valid strings is not a security issue. [LCM] All right, I buy in your point. > > > Regards, > Olivier
diff --git a/lib/librte_eal/common/eal_common_options.c b/lib/librte_eal/common/eal_common_options.c index 29ebb6f..22d5d37 100644 --- a/lib/librte_eal/common/eal_common_options.c +++ b/lib/librte_eal/common/eal_common_options.c @@ -227,7 +227,7 @@ eal_parse_corelist(const char *corelist) /* Remove all blank characters ahead and after */ while (isblank(*corelist)) corelist++; - i = strnlen(corelist, sysconf(_SC_ARG_MAX)); + i = strnlen(corelist, PATH_MAX); while ((i > 0) && isblank(corelist[i - 1])) i--; @@ -469,7 +469,7 @@ eal_parse_lcores(const char *lcores) /* Remove all blank characters ahead and after */ while (isblank(*lcores)) lcores++; - i = strnlen(lcores, sysconf(_SC_ARG_MAX)); + i = strnlen(lcores, PATH_MAX); while ((i > 0) && isblank(lcores[i - 1])) i--;