From patchwork Fri Jun 17 17:18:41 2022 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Patchwork-Submitter: Vladimir Medvedkin X-Patchwork-Id: 113013 X-Patchwork-Delegate: gakhil@marvell.com Return-Path: X-Original-To: patchwork@inbox.dpdk.org Delivered-To: patchwork@inbox.dpdk.org Received: from mails.dpdk.org (mails.dpdk.org [217.70.189.124]) by inbox.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 74EB7A0032; Fri, 17 Jun 2022 19:40:48 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [217.70.189.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F38FB41148; Fri, 17 Jun 2022 19:40:47 +0200 (CEST) Received: from mga05.intel.com (mga05.intel.com [192.55.52.43]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BCD0240F19; Fri, 17 Jun 2022 19:40:45 +0200 (CEST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=intel.com; i=@intel.com; q=dns/txt; s=Intel; t=1655487646; x=1687023646; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:mime-version: content-transfer-encoding; bh=SUUogha2cm4JEbL2RvvBU3sIIAFPXBURI176bEqAd04=; b=NpGu+GWGmGjzOf8pA9pETyqVRdt+jyi9Uilz2qIpT/gGNbOfOjfCOdM5 /tfbS6FLtsvo20Ve/wskFxsp86Mj9SleAMLpkhtWmoaQEeDSL4r7AL1tJ F6wxfdFpGlA4nvjWQhH7CGmJGJaadxrSIIbOJnObXRgWUl443KVDFHsMy 8d5Ntu+bmy/R6/K0I3nNtrX+kD9qH60s0lgZoZWNkeTREB3ljT3k8OJCU PrQARlU5dkvn45PkS7MWflP8I8RdgvfnkHRSWcGX27pvc0kB5gjcy2M3e zhwUZuXnGNxw/sdY85FAtoI5os7vEWhL+wcQw7nrnPia/oa4l/kFiz0ey w==; X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="6400,9594,10380"; a="365866159" X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.92,306,1650956400"; d="scan'208";a="365866159" Received: from fmsmga004.fm.intel.com ([10.253.24.48]) by fmsmga105.fm.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 17 Jun 2022 10:18:53 -0700 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.92,306,1650956400"; d="scan'208";a="653691518" Received: from silpixa00400072.ir.intel.com (HELO silpixa00400072.ger.corp.intel.com) ([10.237.222.91]) by fmsmga004.fm.intel.com with ESMTP; 17 Jun 2022 10:18:51 -0700 From: Vladimir Medvedkin To: dev@dpdk.org Cc: savinay.dharmappa@intel.com, stable@dpdk.org, Konstantin Ananyev , Bernard Iremonger Subject: [PATCH] test/ipsec: fix performance test failure Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2022 17:18:41 +0000 Message-Id: <20220617171842.2788040-1-vladimir.medvedkin@intel.com> X-Mailer: git-send-email 2.25.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org This patch initializes with 0 rte_ipsec_sa_prm inside the ipsec_sa struct. Before it was passed uninitialized to rte_ipsec_sa_init(), which does not check whether prm->ipsec_xform.esn.value is greater than sa->sqn_mask. Bugzilla ID: 1023 Fixes: f7f3ac6dcbe2 ("test/ipsec: add performance cases") Cc: savinay.dharmappa@intel.com Cc: stable@dpdk.org Signed-off-by: Vladimir Medvedkin --- app/test/test_ipsec_perf.c | 4 ++-- 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) diff --git a/app/test/test_ipsec_perf.c b/app/test/test_ipsec_perf.c index 346a851648..580cad00f6 100644 --- a/app/test/test_ipsec_perf.c +++ b/app/test/test_ipsec_perf.c @@ -592,8 +592,8 @@ testsuite_teardown(void) static int test_libipsec_perf(void) { - struct ipsec_sa sa_out; - struct ipsec_sa sa_in; + struct ipsec_sa sa_out = { 0 }; + struct ipsec_sa sa_in = { 0 }; uint32_t i; int ret;