> -Original Message-
> From: David Marchand
> Sent: Tuesday, November 5, 2024 9:06 PM
> To: Mcnamara, John ; Patrick Robb
>
> Cc: dev@dpdk.org; Robin Jarry ; Morten Brørup
>
> Subject: Re: [PATCH dpdk 0/2] IPv6: Fix coverity issues
>
> Hello John, Patrick
Hi,
There isn't a way to pass the patch through to coverity through our
scripting with how we have it written currently. It probably wouldn't be a
big update to start running it based on a given patch provided, if you
think there may be a somewhat regular need for this. I assume in this case
we wo
On Tue, Nov 5, 2024 at 10:05 PM David Marchand
wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 24, 2024 at 5:20 PM Robin Jarry wrote:
> >
> > Here are fixes for three coverity issues:
>
> This series fixes two coverity issues. The fixes look correct.
> But the Coverity reports are not obvious to me.
>
> Is there a way to p
Hello John, Patrick,
On Thu, Oct 24, 2024 at 5:20 PM Robin Jarry wrote:
>
> Here are fixes for three coverity issues:
This series fixes two coverity issues. The fixes look correct.
But the Coverity reports are not obvious to me.
Is there a way to pass those fixes through Coverity to confirm the
For the series,
Acked-by: Morten Brørup
BTW:
It's probably too late to change now, but the common term describing the number
of set bits in an IP netmask is "prefix length", not "depth".
E.g. the subnet 192.0.2.0/24 has a prefix length (not depth) of 24.
Hi all,
Here are fixes for three coverity issues:
/lib/net/rte_ip6.h: 91 in rte_ipv6_addr_mask()
*** CID 446754: Memory - illegal accesses (OVERRUN)
85 {
86 if (depth < RTE_IPV6_MAX_DEPTH) {
87 uint8_t d = depth / 8;
88 uint8_t mask = ~(UI
6 matches
Mail list logo
