On Tuesday, February 04, 2014 03:22:22 PM Sebastian Capella wrote:
> Quoting Sebastian Capella (2014-02-04 14:37:33)
> > Quoting Rafael J. Wysocki (2014-02-04 13:36:29)
> > > > static int __init resumedelay_setup(char *str)
> > > > {
> > > > - resume_delay = simple_strtoul(str, NULL, 0);
> > > > + int ret = kstrtoint(str, 0, &resume_delay);
> > > > + /* mask must_check warn; on failure, leaves resume_delay unchanged */
> > > > + (void)ret;
>
> One unintended consequence of this change is that it'll now accept a
> negative integer parameter.
Well, what about using kstrtouint(), then?
> I'll rework this to have the same behavior as before.
>
> BTW, one question, is the __must_check really needed on kstrtoint?
> Wouldn't it be acceptable to rely on kstrtoint to not update resume_delay
> if it's unable to parse an integer out of the string? Couldn't that be
> a sufficient effect without requiring checking the return?
Well, kstrtoint() is used in some security-sensitive places AFAICS, so it
really is better to check its return value in general. The __must_check
reminds people about that.
Thanks!
--
I speak only for myself.
Rafael J. Wysocki, Intel Open Source Technology Center.
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>