Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 1 Dec 2022 09:49:51 +0800 | Subject | Re: [PATCH v4 2/2] RDMA/srp: Fix error return code in srp_parse_options() | From | wangyufen <> |
| |
在 2022/12/1 2:00, Bart Van Assche 写道: > On 11/29/22 19:31, wangyufen wrote: >> I'm so sorry for the poor patch description. Is the following >> description OK? >> >> In the previous iteration of the while loop, "ret" may have been >> assigned a value of 0, so the error return code -EINVAL may have been >> incorrectly set to 0. >> Also, investigate each case separately as Andy suggessted. If the help >> function match_int() fails, the error code is returned, which is >> different from the warning information printed before. If the parsing >> result token is incorrect, "-EINVAL" is returned and the original >> warning information is printed. > > Please reply below instead of above. See also > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style. > > Regarding your question: not logging an error message if user input is > rejected is unfriendly to the user. I think it's better to keep the > behavior of reporting an error if a match* function fails instead of > reporting in the patch description that the behavior has changed. >
So the following modification is better?
case SRP_OPT_CMD_SG_ENTRIES: - if (match_int(args, &token) || token < 1 || token > 255) { + ret = match_int(args, &token); + if (ret) { + pr_warn("bad max cmd_sg_entries parameter '%s'\n", + p); + goto out; + } + if (token < 1 || token > 255) { pr_warn("bad max cmd_sg_entries parameter '%s'\n", p); + ret = -EINVAL; goto out; } target->cmd_sg_cnt = token; break;
Or the following is better?
if (match_int(args, &token) || token < 1 || token > 255) { pr_warn("bad max cmd_sg_entries parameter '%s'\n", p); + ret = -EINVAL; goto out; } target->cmd_sg_cnt = token; break;
> Thanks, > > Bart. > >
| |