On May 18, 2017, at 15:53, Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Thu, May 04, 2017 at 12:13:38PM -0400, Mathias Rav wrote:
>> Prefer kstrtouint_from_user to copy_from_user+simple_strtoul.
>>
>> The helper function lprocfs_wr_uint() is only used to implement
>> "dump_granted_max" in debugfs.
>>
>> Note the slight change in semantics: The previous implementation using
>> simple_strtoul allows garbage after the number, whereas kstrtox only allows
>> a trailing line break. The previous implementation allowed a write of zero
>> bytes whereas kstrtox will return -EINVAL. Since this only affects a single
>> debugfs endpoint, this should be a permissible slight change of semantics
>> in exchange for 18 fewer lines of code.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Mathias Rav <mathiasrav@xxxxxxxxx>
>> ---
>> .../lustre/lustre/obdclass/lprocfs_status.c | 22 +---------------------
>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 21 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/obdclass/lprocfs_status.c b/drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/obdclass/lprocfs_status.c
>> index 1ec6e3767d81..338ce34d6514 100644
>> --- a/drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/obdclass/lprocfs_status.c
>> +++ b/drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/obdclass/lprocfs_status.c
>> @@ -399,27 +399,7 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL(lprocfs_rd_uint);
>> int lprocfs_wr_uint(struct file *file, const char __user *buffer,
>> unsigned long count, void *data)
>> {
>> - unsigned *p = data;
>> - char dummy[MAX_STRING_SIZE + 1], *end;
>> - unsigned long tmp;
>> -
>> - if (count >= sizeof(dummy))
>> - return -EINVAL;
>> -
>> - if (count == 0)
>> - return 0;
>> -
>> - if (copy_from_user(dummy, buffer, count))
>> - return -EFAULT;
>> -
>> - dummy[count] = '\0';
>> -
>> - tmp = simple_strtoul(dummy, &end, 0);
>> - if (dummy == end)
>> - return -EINVAL;
>> -
>> - *p = (unsigned int)tmp;
>> - return count;
>> + return kstrtouint_from_user(buffer, count, 0, (unsigned int *)data);
>
> Why not just delete this whole function and have the callers make this
> call instead? No need for unneeded wrapper functions of core kernel
> calls.
Even better, it looks like this function has no callers on the client and could just
be deleted entirely.
Cheers, Andreas
--
Andreas Dilger
Lustre Principal Architect
Intel Corporation
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list
devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/driverdev-devel
