On 8/3/2016 12:44 PM, Daniel Mrzyglod wrote: > The operaton may have an undefined behavior or yield to an unexpected result. > A bit shift operation has a shift amount which is too large or has a negative > value. > > Coverity issue: 30688 > Fixes: ea977ff1cb0b ("examples/exception_path: fix shift operation in lcore > setup") > The previous patch forget to fix values also for input_cores_mask > > Signed-off-by: Daniel Mrzyglod <danielx.t.mrzyglod at intel.com> > --- > examples/exception_path/main.c | 2 +- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/examples/exception_path/main.c b/examples/exception_path/main.c > index e5eedcc..88e7708 100644 > --- a/examples/exception_path/main.c > +++ b/examples/exception_path/main.c > @@ -341,7 +341,7 @@ setup_port_lcore_affinities(void) > > /* Setup port_ids[] array, and check masks were ok */ > RTE_LCORE_FOREACH(i) { > - if (input_cores_mask & (1ULL << i)) { > + if (input_cores_mask & (1ULL << (i & 0x3f))) {
I guess 0x3f is because "unsigned long long" is 64bits long, not sure if we should hardcode this assumption. ULL can be >= 64bits. RTE_LCORE_FOREACH(i) already makes sure "i" < RTE_MAX_CORE, and RTE_MAX_CORE is 128 with current default config. So if user provides a core value > 64, it is valid but will be ignored because of this check. Another thing is "input_cores_mask" is also 64bits long, so even this fixed application will not able to use this setting correctly. I think it is good to a) add flexible variable size set_bit/clear_bit/test_bit functions, like Linux ones b) make "input_cores_mask" an array that is large enough to keep RTE_MAX_CORE Although not sure if that is too much effort for this fix. > /* Skip ports that are not enabled */ > while ((ports_mask & (1 << rx_port)) == 0) { > rx_port++; >