From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Neil Horman Subject: Re: [PATCH] rte_mempool_dump() crashes with NULL rte_mempool pointer. Date: Sat, 27 Sep 2014 21:55:04 -0400 Message-ID: <20140928015504.GA28263@localhost.localdomain> References: <20140928003719.GA27849@localhost.localdomain> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: "" To: "Wiles, Roger Keith" Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: List-Id: patches and discussions about DPDK List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dev-bounces-VfR2kkLFssw@public.gmane.org Sender: "dev" On Sun, Sep 28, 2014 at 01:14:05AM +0000, Wiles, Roger Keith wrote: > > On Sep 27, 2014, at 7:37 PM, Neil Horman wrote: > > > On Sat, Sep 27, 2014 at 06:35:01PM +0000, Wiles, Roger Keith wrote: > >> > >> Check the FILE *f and rte_mempool *mp pointers for NULL and > >> return plus print out a message if RTE_LIBRTE_MEMPOOL_DEBUG is enabled. > >> > >> Signed-off-by: Keith Wiles > >> --- > >> lib/librte_mempool/rte_mempool.c | 6 ++++++ > >> 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+) > >> > >> diff --git a/lib/librte_mempool/rte_mempool.c b/lib/librte_mempool/rte_mempool.c > >> index 332f469..efa6a6c 100644 > >> --- a/lib/librte_mempool/rte_mempool.c > >> +++ b/lib/librte_mempool/rte_mempool.c > >> @@ -765,6 +765,12 @@ rte_mempool_dump(FILE *f, const struct rte_mempool *mp) > >> unsigned common_count; > >> unsigned cache_count; > >> > >> + if ( (f == NULL) || (mp == NULL) ) { > >> +#ifdef RTE_LIBRTE_MEMPOOL_DEBUG > >> + fprintf(stderr, "*** Called rte_mempool_dump(%p, %p) with NULL argument\n", f, mp); > >> +#endif /* RTE_LIBRTE_MEMPOOL_DEBUG */ > >> + return; > >> + } > >> fprintf(f, "mempool <%s>@%p\n", mp->name, mp); > >> fprintf(f, " flags=%x\n", mp->flags); > >> fprintf(f, " ring=<%s>@%p\n", mp->ring->name, mp->ring); > >> -- > >> 2.1.0 > >> > >> > > Maybe use RTE_VERIFY instead? > > Neil > > > I did not think it needs to panic as it is just a debug function and returning would be fine by me, comments? > Do we have a similar RTE_VERIFY like function that does not panic? > If we don't, it would seem useful to make one. It beats having to do specific condition checking/error reporting. RTE_VERIFY_WARN or some such. Neil > Keith Wiles, Principal Technologist with CTO office, Wind River mobile 972-213-5533 > >