On Thu, Apr 21, 2022 at 5:30 PM Andrea Parri <parri.andrea@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > > @@ -577,12 +577,19 @@ static bool hvs_dgram_allow(u32 cid, u32 port)
> > > static int hvs_update_recv_data(struct hvsock *hvs)
> > > {
> > > struct hvs_recv_buf *recv_buf;
> > > - u32 payload_len;
> > > + u32 pkt_len, payload_len;
> > > +
> > > + pkt_len = hv_pkt_len(hvs->recv_desc);
> > > +
> > > + /* Ensure the packet is big enough to read its header */
> > > + if (pkt_len < HVS_HEADER_LEN)
> > > + return -EIO;
> > >
> > > recv_buf = (struct hvs_recv_buf *)(hvs->recv_desc + 1);
> > > payload_len = recv_buf->hdr.data_size;
> > >
> > > - if (payload_len > HVS_MTU_SIZE)
> > > + /* Ensure the packet is big enough to read its payload */
> > > + if (payload_len > pkt_len - HVS_HEADER_LEN || payload_len > HVS_MTU_SIZE)
> >
> > checkpatch warns that we exceed 80 characters, I do not have a strong
> > opinion on this, but if you have to resend better break the condition into 2
> > lines.
>
> Will break if preferred. (but does it really warn?? I understand that
> the warning was deprecated and the "limit" increased to 100 chars...)
I see the warn here:
https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/netdevbpf/patch/20220420200720.434717-4-parri.andrea@xxxxxxxxx/
in the kernel doc [1] we still say we prefer 80 columns, so I try to
follow, especially when it doesn't make things worse.
[1] https://docs.kernel.org/process/coding-style.html#breaking-long-lines-and-strings
>
>
> > Maybe even update or remove the comment? (it only describes the first
> > condition, but the conditions are pretty clear, so I don't think it adds
> > much).
>
> Works for me. (taking it as this applies to the previous comment too.)
Yep.
Thanks,
Stefano
