Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] eal: support strlcat function

2019-01-17 Thread Ferruh Yigit
On 1/16/2019 12:48 PM, Bruce Richardson wrote:
> Add the strlcat function to DPDK to exist alongside the strlcpy one.  While
> strncat is generally safe for use for concatenation, the API for the
> strlcat function is perhaps a little nicer to use, and supports truncation
> detection.
> 
> See commit: 5364de644a4b ("eal: support strlcpy function") for more
> details on the function selection logic, since we only should be using the
> DPDK-provided version when no system-provided version is present.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Bruce Richardson 
> ---
>  .../common/include/rte_string_fns.h   | 15 +++
>  test/test/test_string_fns.c   | 45 +++
>  2 files changed, 60 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/lib/librte_eal/common/include/rte_string_fns.h 
> b/lib/librte_eal/common/include/rte_string_fns.h
> index 9a2a1ff90..e7a1656f0 100644
> --- a/lib/librte_eal/common/include/rte_string_fns.h
> +++ b/lib/librte_eal/common/include/rte_string_fns.h
> @@ -59,10 +59,24 @@ rte_strlcpy(char *dst, const char *src, size_t size)
>   return (size_t)snprintf(dst, size, "%s", src);
>  }
>  
> +/**
> + * @internal
> + * DPDK-specific version of strlcat for systems without
> + * libc or libbsd copies of the function
> + */
> +static inline size_t
> +rte_strlcat(char *dst, const char *src, size_t size)
> +{
> + size_t l = strnlen(dst, size);
> + return l + ((l < size) ?
> + rte_strlcpy(&dst[l], src, size - l) : strlen(src));

I think operation is complex for ternary operation, regular if check can be
simpler, other than that looks good to me.

> +}
> +
>  /* pull in a strlcpy function */
>  #ifdef RTE_EXEC_ENV_BSDAPP
>  #ifndef __BSD_VISIBLE /* non-standard functions are hidden */
>  #define strlcpy(dst, src, size) rte_strlcpy(dst, src, size)
> +#define strlcat(dst, src, size) rte_strlcat(dst, src, size)
>  #endif
>  
>  #else /* non-BSD platforms */
> @@ -71,6 +85,7 @@ rte_strlcpy(char *dst, const char *src, size_t size)
>  
>  #else /* no BSD header files, create own */
>  #define strlcpy(dst, src, size) rte_strlcpy(dst, src, size)
> +#define strlcat(dst, src, size) rte_strlcat(dst, src, size)
>  
>  #endif /* RTE_USE_LIBBSD */
>  #endif /* BSDAPP */
> diff --git a/test/test/test_string_fns.c b/test/test/test_string_fns.c
> index 3f091ab92..3bd8ed5d8 100644
> --- a/test/test/test_string_fns.c
> +++ b/test/test/test_string_fns.c
> @@ -129,11 +129,56 @@ test_rte_strsplit(void)
>   return 0;
>  }
>  
> +int
> +test_rte_strlcat(void)
> +{
> + /* only run actual unit tests if we have system-provided strlcat */
> +#if defined(__BSD_VISIBLE) || defined(RTE_USE_LIBBSD)
> +#define BUF_LEN 32
> + const char dst[BUF_LEN] = "Test string";
> + const char src[] = " appended";
> + char bsd_dst[BUF_LEN];
> + char rte_dst[BUF_LEN];
> + size_t i, bsd_ret, rte_ret;
> +
> + LOG("dst = '%s', strlen(dst) = %zu\n", dst, strlen(dst));
> + LOG("src = '%s', strlen(src) = %zu\n", src, strlen(src));
> + LOG("---\n");
> +
> + for (i = 0; i < BUF_LEN; i++) {
> + /* initialize destination buffers */
> + memcpy(bsd_dst, dst, BUF_LEN);
> + memcpy(rte_dst, dst, BUF_LEN);
> + /* compare implementations */
> + bsd_ret = strlcat(bsd_dst, src, i);
> + rte_ret = rte_strlcat(rte_dst, src, i);
> + if (bsd_ret != rte_ret) {
> + LOG("Incorrect retval for buf length = %zu\n", i);
> + LOG("BSD: '%zu', rte: '%zu'\n", bsd_ret, rte_ret);
> + return -1;
> + }
> + if (memcmp(bsd_dst, rte_dst, BUF_LEN) != 0) {
> + LOG("Resulting buffers don't match\n");
> + LOG("BSD: '%s', rte: '%s'\n", bsd_dst, rte_dst);
> + return -1;
> + }
> + LOG("buffer size = %zu: dst = '%s', ret = %zu\n",
> + i, rte_dst, rte_ret);
> + }
> + LOG("Checked %zu combinations\n", i);
> +#undef BUF_LEN
> +#endif /* defined(__BSD_VISIBLE) || defined(RTE_USE_LIBBSD) */
> +
> + return 0;
> +}
> +
>  static int
>  test_string_fns(void)
>  {
>   if (test_rte_strsplit() < 0)
>   return -1;
> + if (test_rte_strlcat() < 0)
> + return -1;
>   return 0;
>  }
>  
> 



Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] eal: support strlcat function

2019-01-17 Thread Burakov, Anatoly

On 17-Jan-19 11:00 AM, Bruce Richardson wrote:

On Thu, Jan 17, 2019 at 10:39:02AM +, Burakov, Anatoly wrote:

On 16-Jan-19 12:48 PM, Bruce Richardson wrote:

Add the strlcat function to DPDK to exist alongside the strlcpy one.
While strncat is generally safe for use for concatenation, the API for
the strlcat function is perhaps a little nicer to use, and supports
truncation detection.

See commit: 5364de644a4b ("eal: support strlcpy function") for more
details on the function selection logic, since we only should be using
the DPDK-provided version when no system-provided version is present.

Signed-off-by: Bruce Richardson  ---


<...>


   static int test_string_fns(void) { if (test_rte_strsplit() < 0)
   return -1; + if (test_rte_strlcat() < 0) +return -1;
   return 0; }



Unrelated, but do we also need to test strlcpy, strscpy and other
functions that were introduced?



Yes, I think that would be advisable. I imagine the easiest way to test
them is to do as I have here in running comparisons with a range of inputs,
especially boundary conditions, against a known-good version for platforms
that have the functions built-in.
As always, volunteers and patches welcome... :-)


/action hides



/Bruce




--
Thanks,
Anatoly


Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] eal: support strlcat function

2019-01-17 Thread Bruce Richardson
On Thu, Jan 17, 2019 at 10:39:02AM +, Burakov, Anatoly wrote:
> On 16-Jan-19 12:48 PM, Bruce Richardson wrote:
> > Add the strlcat function to DPDK to exist alongside the strlcpy one.
> > While strncat is generally safe for use for concatenation, the API for
> > the strlcat function is perhaps a little nicer to use, and supports
> > truncation detection.
> > 
> > See commit: 5364de644a4b ("eal: support strlcpy function") for more
> > details on the function selection logic, since we only should be using
> > the DPDK-provided version when no system-provided version is present.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Bruce Richardson  ---
> 
> <...>
> 
> >   static int test_string_fns(void) { if (test_rte_strsplit() < 0)
> >   return -1; +  if (test_rte_strlcat() < 0) +   return -1;
> >   return 0; }
> > 
> 
> Unrelated, but do we also need to test strlcpy, strscpy and other
> functions that were introduced?
> 

Yes, I think that would be advisable. I imagine the easiest way to test
them is to do as I have here in running comparisons with a range of inputs,
especially boundary conditions, against a known-good version for platforms
that have the functions built-in.
As always, volunteers and patches welcome... :-)

/Bruce


Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] eal: support strlcat function

2019-01-17 Thread Burakov, Anatoly

On 16-Jan-19 12:48 PM, Bruce Richardson wrote:

Add the strlcat function to DPDK to exist alongside the strlcpy one.  While
strncat is generally safe for use for concatenation, the API for the
strlcat function is perhaps a little nicer to use, and supports truncation
detection.

See commit: 5364de644a4b ("eal: support strlcpy function") for more
details on the function selection logic, since we only should be using the
DPDK-provided version when no system-provided version is present.

Signed-off-by: Bruce Richardson 
---


<...>


  static int
  test_string_fns(void)
  {
if (test_rte_strsplit() < 0)
return -1;
+   if (test_rte_strlcat() < 0)
+   return -1;
return 0;
  }
  



Unrelated, but do we also need to test strlcpy, strscpy and other 
functions that were introduced?


--
Thanks,
Anatoly