[dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2] doc: propose correction rte_{bsf, fls} inline functions type use

[Jerin Jacob]

On Thu, Nov 11, 2021 at 6:11 PM Morten Brørup <mb at smartsharesystems.com> wrote:
>
> > From: Thomas Monjalon [mailto:thomas at monjalon.net]
> > Sent: Thursday, 11 November 2021 12.55
> >
> > 11/11/2021 05:15, Tyler Retzlaff:
> > > On Tue, Oct 26, 2021 at 09:45:20AM +0200, Morten Brørup wrote:
> > > > > From: dev [mailto:dev-bounces at dpdk.org] On Behalf Of Thomas
> > Monjalon
> > > > > Sent: Monday, 25 October 2021 21.14
> > > > >
> > > > > 15/03/2021 20:34, Tyler Retzlaff:
> > > > > > The proposal has resulted from request to review [1] the
> > following
> > > > > > functions where there appeared to be inconsistency in return
> > type
> > > > > > or parameter type selections for the following inline
> > functions.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > rte_bsf32()
> > > > > > rte_bsf32_safe()
> > > > > > rte_bsf64()
> > > > > > rte_bsf64_safe()
> > > > > > rte_fls_u32()
> > > > > > rte_fls_u64()
> > > > > > rte_log2_u32()
> > > > > > rte_log2_u64()
> > > > > >
> > > > > > [1] http://mails.dpdk.org/archives/dev/2021-March/201590.html
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Signed-off-by: Tyler Retzlaff <roretzla at linux.microsoft.com>


Acked-by: Jerin Jacob <jerinj at marvell.com>



> > > > > > ---
> > > > > > --- a/doc/guides/rel_notes/deprecation.rst
> > > > > > +++ b/doc/guides/rel_notes/deprecation.rst
> > > > > > +* eal: Fix inline function return and parameter types for
> > > > > rte_{bsf,fls}
> > > > > > +  inline functions to be consistent.
> > > > > > +  Change ``rte_bsf32_safe`` parameter ``v`` from ``uint64_t``
> > to
> > > > > ``uint32_t``.
> > > > > > +  Change ``rte_bsf64`` return type to  ``uint32_t`` instead of
> > > > > ``int``.
> > > > > > +  Change ``rte_fls_u32`` return type to ``uint32_t`` instead
> > of
> > > > > ``int``.
> > > > > > +  Change ``rte_fls_u64`` return type to ``uint32_t`` instead
> > of
> > > > > ``int``.
> > > > >
> > > > > It seems we completely forgot this.
> > > > > How critical is it?
> > > >
> > >
> > > our organization as a matter of internal security policy requires
> > these
> > > sorts of things to be fixed. while i didn't see any bugs in the dpdk
> > > code there is an opportunity for users of these functions to
> > > accidentally write code that is prone to integer and buffer overflow
> > > class bugs.
> > >
> > > there is no urgency, but why leave things sloppy? though i do wish
> > this
> > > had been responded to in a more timely manner 7 months for something
> > > that should have almost been rubber stamped.
> >
> > It's difficult to be on all topics.
> > The best way to avoid such miss is to ping when you see no progress.
> >
> > So what's next?
> > They are only inline functions, right? so no ABI breakage.
> > Is it going to require any change on application-side? I guess no.
> > Is it acceptable in 21.11-rc3? maybe too late?
> > Is it acceptable in 22.02?
>
> If Microsoft (represented by Tyler in this case) considers this a bug, I would prefer getting it into 21.11 - especially because it is an LTS release.
>
> -Morten
>