On 10/16/2024 11:53 AM, Simon Horman wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 16, 2024 at 06:53:10PM +0800, Yue Haibing wrote:
>> Return NULL instead of passing to ERR_PTR while res is IGC_XDP_PASS,
>> which is zero, this fix smatch warnings:
>> drivers/net/ethernet/intel/igc/igc_main.c:2533
>> igc_xdp_run_prog() warn: passing zero to 'ERR_PTR'
>>
>> Fixes: 26575105d6ed ("igc: Add initial XDP support")
>> Signed-off-by: Yue Haibing <yuehaibing@xxxxxxxxxx>
>> ---
>> drivers/net/ethernet/intel/igc/igc_main.c | 2 +-
>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/igc/igc_main.c b/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/igc/igc_main.c
>> index 6e70bca15db1..c3d6e20c0be0 100644
>> --- a/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/igc/igc_main.c
>> +++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/igc/igc_main.c
>> @@ -2530,7 +2530,7 @@ static struct sk_buff *igc_xdp_run_prog(struct igc_adapter *adapter,
>> res = __igc_xdp_run_prog(adapter, prog, xdp);
>>
>> out:
>> - return ERR_PTR(-res);
>> + return res ? ERR_PTR(-res) : NULL;
>
> I think this is what PTR_ERR_OR_ZERO() is for.
Not quite. PTR_ERR_OR_ZERO is intended for the case where you are
extracting an error from a pointer. This is converting an error into a
pointer.
I am not sure what is really expected here. If res is zero, shouldn't we
be returning an skb pointer and not NULL?
Why does igc_xdp_run_prog even return a sk_buff pointer at all? It never
actually returns an skb...
This feels like the wrong fix entirely.
__igc_xdp_run_prog returns a custom value for the action, between
IGC_XDP_PASS, IGC_XDP_TX, IGC_XDP_REDIRECT, or IGC_XDP_CONSUMED.
This function is called by igc_xdp_run_prog which converts this to a
negative error code with the sk_buff pointer type.
All so that we can assign a value to the skb pointer in
ice_clean_rx_irq, and check it with IS_ERR
I don't like this fix, I think we could drop the igc_xdp_run_prog
wrapper, call __igc_xdp_run_prog directly and check its return value
instead of this method of using an error pointer.
