Re: thoughts on DPDK after a few days of reading sources

[Thomas Monjalon <thomas.monjalon@6wind.com>]

Hi,

2016-02-10 19:05, Seth Arnold:
> I've taken some notes while reading the sources; I'm sharing them in the
> hopes that it's useful: on the one hand my fresh eyes may spot things that
> you've overlooked, on the other hand your familiarity with the code means
> that you're better suited to judge what I've found.

Thanks for taking time and sharing, it's very valuable.

> - shellcheck reports extensive cases of forgotten quotes to prevent word
>   splitting or globbing, potentially unused variables, error-prone printf
>   formatting. The scripts that are going to be used at runtime should be
>   fixed:
>   - ./debian/dpdk-init
>   - ./debian/dpdk.init

These files are not in the tree. Should they?

> - ./drivers/net/cxgbe/cxgbe_ethdev.c eth_cxgbe_dev_init() memory leak in
>   out_free_adapter: that doesn't free adapter
> - ./drivers/net/virtio/virtio_ethdev.c virtio_set_multiple_queues() calls
>   virtio_send_command(), which performs:
>   memcpy(vq->virtio_net_hdr_mz->addr, ctrl, sizeof(struct virtio_pmd_ctrl));
>   This copies a potentially huge amount of uninitialized data into ->addr
>   because the struct virtio_pmd_ctrl ctrl was not zeroed before being
>   passed. How much of this data leaves the system? Does this require a
>   CVE?

We are not used to open a CVE.

[...]
>   It's nearly impossible to solve issues without error reporting. Good
>   error reporting saves admins time and money.

Until now, the errors were reported on the list and most often fixed quickly.
While I agree we need a more formal process (a bug tracker), I think we must
be noticed of new bugs on the mailing list.
Since nobody was against the bugzilla proposal, a deployment will be planned.
	http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/2015-August/023012.html