On 4/21/2021 2:19 PM, Ferruh Yigit wrote:
On 4/21/2021 12:28 PM, Andrew Rybchenko wrote:
On 4/21/21 5:36 AM, Ferruh Yigit wrote:
From: "Min Hu (Connor)" <humi...@huawei.com>
This patch adds more sanity checks in control path APIs.
Fixes: 214ed1acd125 ("ethdev: add iterator to match devargs input")
Fixes: 3d98f921fbe9 ("ethdev: unify prefix for static functions and variables")
Fixes: 0366137722a0 ("ethdev: check for invalid device name")
Fixes: d948f596fee2 ("ethdev: fix port data mismatched in multiple process
model")
Fixes: 5b7ba31148a8 ("ethdev: add port ownership")
Fixes: f8244c6399d9 ("ethdev: increase port id range")
Cc: sta...@dpdk.org
Signed-off-by: Min Hu (Connor) <humi...@huawei.com>
Signed-off-by: Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yi...@intel.com>
Reviewed-by: Andrew Rybchenko <andrew.rybche...@oktetlabs.ru>
Acked-by: Kevin Traynor <ktray...@redhat.com>
Few nits below.
Other than that I confirm my "Reviewed-by".
The patch is really long. It would be better to split it into
few:
- relocate dev assignment
- empty lines mangling (when it is unrelated to previous item)
- ops check before usage (combined with related style checks)
- error logs refinement
However, since the patch is already reviewed this way, may
be it is better to push as is after review notes processing.
@@ -817,7 +859,12 @@ rte_eth_dev_get_port_by_name(const char *name, uint16_t
*port_id)
uint16_t pid;
if (name == NULL) {
- RTE_ETHDEV_LOG(ERR, "Null pointer is specified\n");
+ RTE_ETHDEV_LOG(ERR, "Cannot get port ID from NULL name");
+ return -EINVAL;
+ }
+
+ if (port_id == NULL) {
+ RTE_ETHDEV_LOG(ERR, "Cannot get port ID to NULL\n");
Since name is already checked above, I think it would be useful
to log 'name' here to provide context.
return -EINVAL;
}
[snip]
@@ -3256,6 +3370,20 @@ rte_eth_dev_fw_version_get(uint16_t port_id, char
*fw_version, size_t fw_size)
RTE_ETH_VALID_PORTID_OR_ERR_RET(port_id, -ENODEV);
dev = &rte_eth_devices[port_id];
+ if (fw_version == NULL) {
+ RTE_ETHDEV_LOG(ERR,
+ "Cannot get ethdev port %u FW version to NULL\n",
+ port_id);
+ return -EINVAL;
+ }
+
+ if (fw_size == 0) {
+ RTE_ETHDEV_LOG(ERR,
+ "Cannot get ethdev port %u FW version to buffer with zero size\n",
+ port_id);
+ return -EINVAL;
+ }
+
The only error condition is NULL fw_version with positive
fw_size. Othwerwise, it could be just a call to get required
size of buffer for FW version.
Right, above is wrong.
Agree that "fw_version == NULL && fw_size > 0" is error condition,
but is it clear if how this API should behave on
"fw_version == NULL && fw_size == 0"?
Like sfc has following,
if ((fw_version == NULL) || (fw_size == 0))
return -EINVAL;
axgbe, qede also returns error when fw_version is NULL, independent from
fw_size.
But I think taking "fw_version == NULL && fw_size > 0" as only error condition
is reasonable, although some PMDs will be behaving wrong.
I can send a separate patch to unify the behavior.
