From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Thomas Monjalon <thomas.monjalon@6wind.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5] eal: out-of-bounds write
Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2016 14:54:59 +0200
Message-ID: <2952281.ce24Bjh3Nh@xps13>
References: <1466088738-16990-1-git-send-email-slawomirx.mrozowicz@intel.com>
 <93a9aba2-4fd0-ea57-18bc-b794ecb91b92@intel.com>
 <158888A50F43E34AAE179517F56C97455CD010@IRSMSX103.ger.corp.intel.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cc: dev@dpdk.org, david.marchand@6wind.com
To: "Mrozowicz, SlawomirX" <slawomirx.mrozowicz@intel.com>, "Gonzalez Monroy,
 Sergio" <sergio.gonzalez.monroy@intel.com>
Return-path: <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>
Received: from mail-lf0-f48.google.com (mail-lf0-f48.google.com
 [209.85.215.48]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8EFC62B9D
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Thu, 21 Jul 2016 14:55:01 +0200 (CEST)
Received: by mail-lf0-f48.google.com with SMTP id g62so61054259lfe.3
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Thu, 21 Jul 2016 05:55:01 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <158888A50F43E34AAE179517F56C97455CD010@IRSMSX103.ger.corp.intel.com>
List-Id: patches and discussions about DPDK <dev.dpdk.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://dpdk.org/ml/options/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:dev@dpdk.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://dpdk.org/ml/listinfo/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org
Sender: "dev" <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>

2016-07-21 12:01, Mrozowicz, SlawomirX:
> Hi Thomas,
>=20
> As I understand Sergio suggested to come back to the solution similar=
 to v1.
> Could you comment or better take decision which solution should be ap=
plied, please.
>=20
> Best Regards,
> S=C5=82awomir=20
>=20
>=20
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: Gonzalez Monroy, Sergio
> >On 20/06/2016 11:09, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> >> 2016-06-20 10:38, Sergio Gonzalez Monroy:
> >>> On 20/06/2016 10:14, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> >>>>> +=09=09RTE_LOG(ERR, EAL,
> >>>>> +=09=09=09"All memory segments exhausted by IVSHMEM. "
> >>>> There is no evidence that it is related to IVSHMEM.
> >>>> "Not enough memory segments." would be more appropriate.
> >>> Actually we would hit this issue when all memsegs have been used =
by
> >IVSHMEM.
> >>> So I think the message is accurate.
> >> I think it's saner to avoid mixing "potential root cause of a use
> >> case" and "accurate description of the error".
> >> One day, the root cause could be different and the message will be=
come
> >wrong.
> >> Here there is not enough memory segment.
> >>
> >
> >Right.
> >So the whole point of doing the check before the loop was to display=
 the error
> >message with its specific cause.
> >
> >I would think that if the code changes and the message is not accura=
te then it
> >should also be updated.
> >
> >So if folks prefer a more generic error message probably we don't ne=
ed the
> >check before the loop and just change the check condition inside the=
 loop that
> >would end up printing the generic error message (after the loop).
> >
> >Basically v1 would do that.
> >http://dpdk.org/dev/patchwork/patch/12241/

At this point of 16.07 we can apply the v1 if you agree.
The message about IVSHMEM will be totally wrong when the ivshmem specif=
ic
code will be removed.
If we need more error messages, feel free to send another patch.