Hello Christoph Hellwig,
The patch 2a842acab109: "block: introduce new block status code type"
from Jun 3, 2017, leads to the following static checker warning:
fs/exofs/inode.c:1333 exofs_new_inode()
error: passing non negative 255 to ERR_PTR
drivers/scsi/osd/osd_initiator.c
1909 analyze:
1910 if (!osi->key) {
1911 /* scsi sense is Empty, the request was never issued to target
1912 * linux return code might tell us what happened.
1913 */
1914 if (or->async_error == BLK_STS_RESOURCE)
1915 osi->osd_err_pri = OSD_ERR_PRI_RESOURCE;
1916 else
1917 osi->osd_err_pri = OSD_ERR_PRI_UNREACHABLE;
1918 ret = or->async_error;
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
The problem is that we're mixing the new block codes and normal kernel
error codes. It's disapointing that Sparse doesn't seem to complain
about this assignment. Anyway, we propagate the error code back and
eventually pass it through ERR_PTR() and IS_ERR() and then dereference
it.
1919 } else if (osi->key <= scsi_sk_recovered_error) {
1920 osi->osd_err_pri = 0;
1921 ret = 0;
1922 } else if (osi->additional_code == scsi_invalid_field_in_cdb) {
1923 if (osi->cdb_field_offset == OSD_CFO_STARTING_BYTE) {
1924 osi->osd_err_pri = OSD_ERR_PRI_CLEAR_PAGES;
1925 ret = -EFAULT; /* caller should recover from this */
1926 } else if (osi->cdb_field_offset == OSD_CFO_OBJECT_ID) {
1927 osi->osd_err_pri = OSD_ERR_PRI_NOT_FOUND;
1928 ret = -ENOENT;
1929 } else if (osi->cdb_field_offset == OSD_CFO_PERMISSIONS) {
1930 osi->osd_err_pri = OSD_ERR_PRI_NO_ACCESS;
1931 ret = -EACCES;
1932 } else {
1933 osi->osd_err_pri = OSD_ERR_PRI_BAD_CRED;
1934 ret = -EINVAL;
1935 }
1936 } else if (osi->additional_code == osd_quota_error) {
1937 osi->osd_err_pri = OSD_ERR_PRI_NO_SPACE;
1938 ret = -ENOSPC;
1939 } else if (_is_osd_security_code(osi->additional_code)) {
1940 osi->osd_err_pri = OSD_ERR_PRI_BAD_CRED;
1941 ret = -EINVAL;
1942 } else {
regards,
dan carpenter
