For additional information the strings that are being matched against are:
#define SMB1_VERSION_STRING "1.0"
#define SMB20_VERSION_STRING "2.0"
#define SMB21_VERSION_STRING "2.1"
#define SMB30_VERSION_STRING "3.0"
#define SMB302_VERSION_STRING "3.02"
#define SMB31_VERSION_STRING "3.1"
The matching works as expected, e,g. specifying 3.0 gets matched to
Smb_30, before and/after adding the sixth element to the match_table_t
- except that unmatched items (picking a dialect that doesn't exist
like "5.1") matches to Smb_21 where it used to fall through to the
default (error) case.
It got me a little worried that there MAX_OPT_ARGS is 3 and I am
getting the third element in the case of the error.
Looking at other examples in the kernel were strange e.g. ext4/super.c has this
/*
* Initialize args struct so we know whether arg was
* found; some options take optional arguments.
*/
args[0].to = args[0].from = NULL;
token = match_token(p, tokens, args);
(and then passes args down to a large helper function handle_mount_opt)
Initializing args didn't seem to help in the cifs case
On Wed, Sep 17, 2014 at 3:36 PM, Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 09/17/14 13:33, Randy Dunlap wrote:
>> On 09/17/14 11:20, Steve French wrote:
>>> Noticing something very strange with match_token. I had five strings
>>> I need to compare a version string (protocol dialect eg. "2.1" or
>>> "3.0") against, to find which it matches (if any), but adding one to
>>> the list (now checking for one of six strings instead of five) causes
>>> the error case to always default to element 3 (in my example looks as
>>> if it matched to the 2.1 string) instead of the error case.
>>>
>>> enum smb_version {
>>> Smb_1 = 1,
>>> Smb_20,
>>> Smb_21,
>>> Smb_30,
>>> Smb_302,
>>> };
>>>
>>> static const match_table_t cifs_smb_version_tokens = {
>>> { Smb_1, SMB1_VERSION_STRING },
>>> { Smb_20, SMB20_VERSION_STRING},
>>> { Smb_21, SMB21_VERSION_STRING },
>>> { Smb_30, SMB30_VERSION_STRING },
>>> { Smb_302, SMB302_VERSION_STRING },
>>> };
>>>
>>
>> You don't tell us what the actual string values are, but I'm guessing that
>> SMB302_VERSION_STRING is a subset (same in first N characters) of SMB30_VERSION_STRING. ??
>>
>> In that case I think that match_token() will return a ptr to SMB_30 instead of to
>> SMB_302 when the input is "3.02" (matches "3.0" due to the kernel's implementation
>> of strcmp() stopping at the end of string1 (where string1 is "3.0" in this case).
>
> Oops, it seems that I got the strcmp() parameters reversed. Sorry about that.
> Feel free to disregard my ramblings.
>
>>
>> If that is all correct, then could your return value be off by 1?
>>
>>>
>>> When I add one entry to the lists above (going from 5 to 6 elements),
>>> and then add one additional case for it to the switch statement, an
>>> attempt to provide an unrecognized string (e.g. if I specify an illegal
>>> dialect string like "9" instead of "3.0" or "2.1" etc) will now match the
>>> third element (Smb_21) instead of "default" in the code snippet below.
>>> Is match_token broken? Can match token only handle tables with 5
>>> elements or fewer? Is there a replacement for it for this kind of thing
>>> (matching a string versus which from among a list of valid strings)
>>> other than match_token? Is match_token just broken?
>>>
>>> substring_t args[MAX_OPT_ARGS];
>>>
>>> switch (match_token(value, cifs_smb_version_tokens, args)) {
>>> case Smb_1:
>>> vol->ops = &smb1_operations;
>>> vol->vals = &smb1_values;
>>> break;
>>> case Smb_20:
>>> vol->ops = &smb20_operations;
>>> vol->vals = &smb20_values;
>>> break;
>>> case Smb_21:
>>> vol->ops = &smb21_operations;
>>> vol->vals = &smb21_values;
>>> break;
>>> case Smb_30:
>>> vol->ops = &smb30_operations;
>>> vol->vals = &smb30_values;
>>> break;
>>> case Smb_302:
>>> vol->ops = &smb30_operations; /* currently identical with 3.0 */
>>> vol->vals = &smb302_values;
>>> break;
>>> default:
>>> cifs_dbg(VFS, "Unknown vers= option specified: %s\n", value);
>>> return 1;
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> ~Randy
--
Thanks,
Steve
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
