I see. Then, if the 1-based _odp_int_pkt_queue_t is used as index to access
pool->queue_num_tbl, and the 0 block is discarded, the malloc should
allocate max + 1, right?

--
Oriol Arcas
Software Engineer
Starflow Networks

On Thu, Jul 28, 2016 at 10:34 PM, Bill Fischofer <[email protected]>
wrote:

> I don't see any problems after applying this patch, however I'm wondering
> if this is the correct fix to the problem because of this comment:
>
> _odp_int_queue_pool_t _odp_queue_pool_create(uint32_t max_num_queues,
>     uint32_t max_queued_pkts)
> {
> queue_pool_t *pool;
> uint32_t idx, initial_free_list_size, malloc_len, first_queue_blk_idx;
> int rc;
>
> pool = malloc(sizeof(queue_pool_t));
> memset(pool, 0, sizeof(queue_pool_t));
>
>        /* Initialize the queue_blk_tbl_sizes array based upon the
> * max_queued_pkts.
> */
> max_queued_pkts = MAX(max_queued_pkts, 64 * 1024);
> queue_region_desc_init(pool, 0, max_queued_pkts / 4);
> queue_region_desc_init(pool, 1, max_queued_pkts / 64);
> queue_region_desc_init(pool, 2, max_queued_pkts / 64);
> queue_region_desc_init(pool, 3, max_queued_pkts / 64);
> queue_region_desc_init(pool, 4, max_queued_pkts / 64);
> for (idx = 5; idx < 16; idx++)
> queue_region_desc_init(pool, idx, max_queued_pkts / 16);
>
>        /* Now allocate the first queue_blk_tbl and add its blks to the free
> * list.  Replenish the queue_blk_t free list.
> */
> initial_free_list_size = MIN(64 * 1024, max_queued_pkts / 4);
> rc = pkt_queue_free_list_add(pool, initial_free_list_size);
> if (rc < 0)
> return _ODP_INT_QUEUE_POOL_INVALID;
>
> /* Discard the first queue blk with idx 0 */    <== Note!
> queue_blk_alloc(pool, &first_queue_blk_idx);
>
> pool->max_queue_num = max_num_queues;
> pool->max_queued_pkts = max_queued_pkts;
> pool->next_queue_num = 1;
>
>         ....
>
> }
>
> It appears the code understands that blocks have a 0 origin but it's
> intentionally not using block 0. A switch to 0-indexed addressing would
> mean that block 0 would be used even though it's been discarded via a
> previous queue_blk_alloc().
>
> So it seems given that block 0 is being discarded the correct way to avoid
> the overruns is to check at the other end of the array and change those if
> (pool->max_queue_num < queue_num) tests into if (pool->max_queue_num <=
> queue_num) tests so that the maximum index that will be dereferenced is
> max_queue_num - 1.
>
> Barry: Any opinions on this one?
>
> On Thu, Jul 28, 2016 at 1:28 PM, Oriol Arcas <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>> Signed-off-by: Oriol Arcas <[email protected]>
>> ---
>>  platform/linux-generic/odp_pkt_queue.c | 9 +++++----
>>  1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/platform/linux-generic/odp_pkt_queue.c
>> b/platform/linux-generic/odp_pkt_queue.c
>> index 7734ee9..be638a3 100644
>> --- a/platform/linux-generic/odp_pkt_queue.c
>> +++ b/platform/linux-generic/odp_pkt_queue.c
>> @@ -263,13 +263,13 @@ int _odp_pkt_queue_append(_odp_int_queue_pool_t
>> queue_pool,
>>                 return -3;
>>
>>         pool->total_pkt_appends++;
>> -       first_blk_idx = pool->queue_num_tbl[queue_num];
>> +       first_blk_idx = pool->queue_num_tbl[queue_num - 1];
>>         if (first_blk_idx == 0) {
>>                 first_blk = queue_blk_alloc(pool, &first_blk_idx);
>>                 if (!first_blk)
>>                         return -1;
>>
>> -               pool->queue_num_tbl[queue_num] = first_blk_idx;
>> +               pool->queue_num_tbl[queue_num - 1] = first_blk_idx;
>>                 init_queue_blk(first_blk);
>>                 first_blk->pkts[0] = pkt;
>>                 return 0;
>> @@ -316,7 +316,7 @@ int _odp_pkt_queue_remove(_odp_int_queue_pool_t
>> queue_pool,
>>         if ((queue_num == 0) || (pool->max_queue_num < queue_num))
>>                 return -2;
>>
>> -       first_blk_idx = pool->queue_num_tbl[queue_num];
>> +       first_blk_idx = pool->queue_num_tbl[queue_num - 1];
>>         if (first_blk_idx == 0)
>>                 return 0; /* pkt queue is empty. */
>>
>> @@ -344,7 +344,8 @@ int _odp_pkt_queue_remove(_odp_int_queue_pool_t
>> queue_pool,
>>
>> first_blk->tail_queue_blk_idx;
>>                                 }
>>
>> -                               pool->queue_num_tbl[queue_num] =
>> next_blk_idx;
>> +                               pool->queue_num_tbl[queue_num - 1] =
>> +                                               next_blk_idx;
>>                                 queue_blk_free(pool, first_blk,
>> first_blk_idx);
>>                         }
>>
>> --
>> 1.9.1
>>
>>
>

Reply via email to