在 2022/12/1 2:00, Bart Van Assche 写道:
On 11/29/22 19:31, wangyufen wrote:
I'm so sorry for the poor patch description. Is the following
description OK?
In the previous iteration of the while loop, "ret" may have been
assigned a value of 0, so the error return code -EINVAL may have been
incorrectly set to 0.
Also, investigate each case separately as Andy suggessted. If the help
function match_int() fails, the error code is returned, which is
different from the warning information printed before. If the parsing
result token is incorrect, "-EINVAL" is returned and the original
warning information is printed.
Please reply below instead of above. See also
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style.
Regarding your question: not logging an error message if user input is
rejected is unfriendly to the user. I think it's better to keep the
behavior of reporting an error if a match* function fails instead of
reporting in the patch description that the behavior has changed.
So the following modification is better?
case SRP_OPT_CMD_SG_ENTRIES:
- if (match_int(args, &token) || token < 1 ||
token > 255) {
+ ret = match_int(args, &token);
+ if (ret) {
+ pr_warn("bad max cmd_sg_entries
parameter '%s'\n",
+ p);
+ goto out;
+ }
+ if (token < 1 || token > 255) {
pr_warn("bad max cmd_sg_entries
parameter '%s'\n",
p);
+ ret = -EINVAL;
goto out;
}
target->cmd_sg_cnt = token;
break;
Or the following is better?
if (match_int(args, &token) || token < 1 ||
token > 255) {
pr_warn("bad max cmd_sg_entries
parameter '%s'\n",
p);
+ ret = -EINVAL;
goto out;
}
target->cmd_sg_cnt = token;
break;
Thanks,
Bart.
