Re: [PATCH bpf-next v2] libbpf: Optimized return value in libbpf_strerror when errno is libbpf errno Xin Liu

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On 12/9/22 12:05 PM, Xin Liu wrote:
This is a small improvement in libbpf_strerror. When libbpf_strerror
is used to obtain the system error description, if the length of the
buf is insufficient, libbpf_sterror returns ERANGE and sets errno to
ERANGE.

However, this processing is not performed when the error code
customized by libbpf is obtained. Make some minor improvements here,
return -ERANGE and set errno to ERANGE when buf is not enough for
custom description.

nit: $subject line got corrupted?

Signed-off-by: Xin Liu <liuxin350@xxxxxxxxxx>
---

v2:
Check the return value of snprintf to determine whether the buffer is
too small.

v1:
https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20221209084047.229525-1-liuxin350@xxxxxxxxxx/T/#t

  tools/lib/bpf/libbpf_errno.c | 15 +++++++++++----
  1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)

diff --git a/tools/lib/bpf/libbpf_errno.c b/tools/lib/bpf/libbpf_errno.c
index 96f67a772a1b..6240c7cb7472 100644
--- a/tools/lib/bpf/libbpf_errno.c
+++ b/tools/lib/bpf/libbpf_errno.c
@@ -39,14 +39,13 @@ static const char *libbpf_strerror_table[NR_ERRNO] = {
int libbpf_strerror(int err, char *buf, size_t size)
  {
+	int ret;

nit: newline after declaration

  	if (!buf || !size)
  		return libbpf_err(-EINVAL);
err = err > 0 ? err : -err; if (err < __LIBBPF_ERRNO__START) {
-		int ret;
-
  		ret = strerror_r(err, buf, size);
  		buf[size - 1] = '\0';
  		return libbpf_err_errno(ret);
@@ -56,12 +55,20 @@ int libbpf_strerror(int err, char *buf, size_t size)
  		const char *msg;
msg = libbpf_strerror_table[ERRNO_OFFSET(err)];
-		snprintf(buf, size, "%s", msg);
+		ret = snprintf(buf, size, "%s", msg);
  		buf[size - 1] = '\0';
+		if (ret < 0)
+			return libbpf_err_errno(ret);

This would pass in ret == -1 and then eventually return 1 which
is misleading, no?

We have buf and msg non-NULL and a positive size, afaik, the only
case where you could get a negative error now is when you pass in
a buf with size exceeding INT_MAX..

+		if (ret >= size)
+			return libbpf_err(-ERANGE);
  		return 0;
  	}
- snprintf(buf, size, "Unknown libbpf error %d", err);
+	ret = snprintf(buf, size, "Unknown libbpf error %d", err);
  	buf[size - 1] = '\0';
+	if (ret < 0)
+		return libbpf_err_errno(ret);
+	if (ret >= size)
+		return libbpf_err(-ERANGE);
  	return libbpf_err(-ENOENT);
  }





[Index of Archives]     [Linux Samsung SoC]     [Linux Rockchip SoC]     [Linux Actions SoC]     [Linux for Synopsys ARC Processors]     [Linux NFS]     [Linux NILFS]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Video for Linux]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]


  Powered by Linux