On Fri, Jun 20, 2025 at 11:22 AM Bruce Richardson
[off-list ref] wrote:

On Thu, Jun 19, 2025 at 09:10:32AM +0200, David Marchand wrote:

quoted

pl->map is a uint32_t.

Caught by UBSan:

../lib/cmdline/cmdline_parse_portlist.c:27:17: runtime error:
      left shift of 1 by 31 places cannot be represented in type 'int'
SUMMARY: UndefinedBehaviorSanitizer: undefined-behavior
      ../lib/cmdline/cmdline_parse_portlist.c:27:17 in

Fixes: af75078fece3 ("first public release")
Cc: stable@dpdk.org

Signed-off-by: David Marchand <redacted>
---
 lib/cmdline/cmdline_parse_portlist.c | 4 +++-
 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/lib/cmdline/cmdline_parse_portlist.c b/lib/cmdline/cmdline_parse_portlist.c
index 0c07cc02b5..3ef427d32a 100644
--- a/lib/cmdline/cmdline_parse_portlist.c
+++ b/lib/cmdline/cmdline_parse_portlist.c

@@ -11,7 +11,9 @@
 #include <errno.h>

 #include <eal_export.h>
+#include <rte_bitops.h>
 #include <rte_string_fns.h>
+
 #include "cmdline_parse.h"
 #include "cmdline_parse_portlist.h"

@@ -27,7 +29,7 @@ static void
 parse_set_list(cmdline_portlist_t *pl, size_t low, size_t high)
 {
      do {
-             pl->map |= (1 << low++);
+             pl->map |= RTE_BIT32(low++);
      } while (low <= high);
 }

While this is correct, the use of "++" in a call to a macro sets off some
alarm bells for me!
Can we put the "++" in the while instead, as "++low"?

It would be safer yes.


-- 
David Marchand