On Thu, 20 Aug 2026 09:31:40 +0200 Morten Brørup <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Many platforms have no special rte_memcpy() and just use memcpy(). > > > > But many analysis and test tools know that memcpy() is a special > > case and check for overwrite, bounds errors etc. Therefore memcpy() > > should be preferred wherever possible. > > I think this is the only substantial benefit of replacing rte_memcpy() with > memcpy()! > Could we reap this benefit by having special builds for such tools, where > rte_memcpy() is modified to use memcpy() instead? > Then we wouldn't have to compromise on performance. > > Also, rte_memcpy() used to have a pragma disabling bounds checks due to some > Intel drivers using [0] instead of []; the pragma was removed from > rte_memcpy() when the Intel drivers were fixed. > I'm not sufficiently familiar with analysis/test tools to say what they can > detect when using memcpy() instead of the copy methods used by rte_memcpy(). The most common one is fortify which is runtime checking and part of Ubuntu etc build. So no doing some #ifdef FORTIFY_SOURCE really is not helping.
