On Tue, Dec 01, 2020 at 01:19:30PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 1, 2020 at 1:04 PM Johan Hovold <johan@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > 0x01 is 1 and is generally treated as boolean true as you know.
>
> Depends how you interpret this. kstrtobool() uses one character (and
> in some cases two) of the input. Everything else is garbage.
> Should we interpret garbage?
No, ideally we should reject the input.
> > So why should a sysfs-interface accept it as valid input and treat it as
> > false? That's just bad design.
>
> I can agree with this.
Looks like part of the problem are commits like 4cc7ecb7f2a6 ("param:
convert some "on"/"off" users to strtobool") which destroyed perfectly
well-defined interfaces.
> > You miss the point; kstrobool accepts "12" today and treats it as true.
> > You cannot extend such an interface to later accept a larger range than
> > 0 and 1 as you didn't return an error for "12" from the start (as someone
> > might now rely on "12" being treated as "1").
>
> Somehow cifs uses kstrtobool() in conjunction with the wider ranges. Nobody
> complained so far. But maybe they had it from day 1.
Wow, that's pretty nasty.
> So, we have two issues here: kstrtobool() doesn't report an error of
> input when it has garbage, the user may rely on garbage to be
> discarded.
Right, parsing is too allowing and there are too many ways to say
true/false.
The power-management attributes use 0 and 1 for boolean like I do here,
and I'd prefer to stick to that until we have deprecated the current
kstrtobool.
Johan
