[dpdk-dev] examples: fix unchecked malloc return value in ip_pipeline
Commit Message
Acked by: <Cristian.Dumitrescu at intel.com>
-----Original Message-----
From: Richardson, Bruce
Sent: Friday, December 12, 2014 12:24 PM
To: dev@dpdk.org; Dumitrescu, Cristian
Cc: Richardson, Bruce
Subject: [PATCH] examples: fix unchecked malloc return value in ip_pipeline
Static analysis shows that once instance of rte_zmalloc is missing
a return value check in the code. This is fixed by adding a return
value check. The malloc call itself is moved to earlier in the function
so that no work is done unless all memory allocation requests have
succeeded - thereby removing the need for rollback on error.
Signed-off-by: Bruce Richardson <bruce.richardson@intel.com>
---
examples/ip_pipeline/cmdline.c | 20 +++++++++++++-------
1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
Comments
Hi Cristian,
2014-12-12 15:19, Dumitrescu, Cristian:
> Acked by: <Cristian.Dumitrescu at intel.com>
Please, next time,
- add you acked-by below the signed-off,
- put your name and a real email address (like in a signed-off),
- and remove the patch to make email shorter.
I think the web site needs to be updated to explain such things.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Richardson, Bruce
> Sent: Friday, December 12, 2014 12:24 PM
> To: dev@dpdk.org; Dumitrescu, Cristian
> Cc: Richardson, Bruce
> Subject: [PATCH] examples: fix unchecked malloc return value in ip_pipeline
>
> Static analysis shows that once instance of rte_zmalloc is missing
> a return value check in the code. This is fixed by adding a return
> value check. The malloc call itself is moved to earlier in the function
> so that no work is done unless all memory allocation requests have
> succeeded - thereby removing the need for rollback on error.
>
> Signed-off-by: Bruce Richardson <bruce.richardson@intel.com>
> ---
> examples/ip_pipeline/cmdline.c | 20 +++++++++++++-------
> 1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/examples/ip_pipeline/cmdline.c b/examples/ip_pipeline/cmdline.c
> index 13d565e..152acb5 100644
> --- a/examples/ip_pipeline/cmdline.c
> +++ b/examples/ip_pipeline/cmdline.c
[...]
> Static analysis shows that once instance of rte_zmalloc is missing
> a return value check in the code. This is fixed by adding a return
> value check. The malloc call itself is moved to earlier in the function
> so that no work is done unless all memory allocation requests have
> succeeded - thereby removing the need for rollback on error.
>
> Signed-off-by: Bruce Richardson <bruce.richardson@intel.com>
> Acked by: <Cristian.Dumitrescu at intel.com>
Applied
Thanks
@@ -1093,7 +1093,7 @@ cmd_firewall_add_parsed(
__attribute__((unused)) void *data)
{
struct cmd_firewall_add_result *params = parsed_result;
- struct app_rule rule, *old_rule;
+ struct app_rule rule, *old_rule, *new_rule = NULL;
struct rte_mbuf *msg;
struct app_msg_req *req;
struct app_msg_resp *resp;
@@ -1148,6 +1148,18 @@ cmd_firewall_add_parsed(
if (msg == NULL)
rte_panic("Unable to allocate new message\n");
+ /* if we need a new rule structure, allocate it before we go further */
+ if (old_rule == NULL) {
+ new_rule = rte_zmalloc_socket("CLI", sizeof(struct app_rule),
+ RTE_CACHE_LINE_SIZE, rte_socket_id());
+ if (new_rule == NULL) {
+ printf("Cannot allocate memory for new rule\n");
+ rte_ctrlmbuf_free(msg);
+ return;
+ }
+ }
+
+
/* Fill request message */
req = (struct app_msg_req *)rte_ctrlmbuf_data(msg);
req->type = APP_MSG_REQ_FW_ADD;
@@ -1190,12 +1202,6 @@ cmd_firewall_add_parsed(
printf("Request FIREWALL_ADD failed (%u)\n", resp->result);
else {
if (old_rule == NULL) {
- struct app_rule *new_rule = (struct app_rule *)
- rte_zmalloc_socket("CLI",
- sizeof(struct app_rule),
- RTE_CACHE_LINE_SIZE,
- rte_socket_id());
-
memcpy(new_rule, &rule, sizeof(rule));
TAILQ_INSERT_TAIL(&firewall_table, new_rule, entries);
n_firewall_rules++;