[DPDK/core Bug 1724] test_pktmbuf_read_from_offset tests for incorrect overflow behaviour of rte_pktmbuf_read

[DPDK/core Bug 1724] test_pktmbuf_read_from_offset tests for incorrect overflow behaviour of rte_pktmbuf_read

[bugzilla]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1285 bytes --]

https://bugs.dpdk.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1724

            Bug ID: 1724
           Summary: test_pktmbuf_read_from_offset tests for incorrect
                    overflow behaviour of rte_pktmbuf_read
           Product: DPDK
           Version: unspecified
          Hardware: All
                OS: All
            Status: UNCONFIRMED
          Severity: minor
          Priority: Normal
         Component: core
          Assignee: dev@dpdk.org
          Reporter: marat.khalili@huawei.com
  Target Milestone: ---

Test function test_pktmbuf_read_from_offset as one of its checks
surprisingly verifies that the following call succeeds even though
rte_pktmbuf_read never guarantees this behaviour in its documentation:

    rte_pktmbuf_read(m, hdr_len, UINT_MAX, NULL);

The reason this call succeeds is due to 32-bit unsigned integer
overflow, but it is unlikely that this behaviour is intentional and
needs testing. It is very likely instead that the check condition was
reversed by mistake. Other similar calls that follow are being correctly
verified as failing. And, there were no checks of valid offset and
excessive length combinations that would cause the call to fail.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug.

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 3180 bytes --]

[DPDK/core Bug 1724] test_pktmbuf_read_from_offset tests for incorrect overflow behaviour of rte_pktmbuf_read

[bugzilla]

http://bugs.dpdk.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1724

Marat Khalili (marat.khalili@huawei.com) changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
         Resolution|---                         |FIXED
             Status|UNCONFIRMED                 |RESOLVED

--- Comment #5 from Marat Khalili (marat.khalili@huawei.com) ---
Fixed properly in 45f1da4401f0934ae1d5e194d8bf689c8d7a6300.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug.