On Wed, Aug 02, 2017 at 05:51:47PM +0200, Jan Tulak wrote:
> An addendum to the previous email.
>
> On 02/08/2017 16:30, Jan Tulak wrote:
> > On 29/07/2017 19:12, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> > > On Fri, Jul 28, 2017 at 04:45:58PM +0200, Jan Tulak wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On 27/07/2017 18:27, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> > > > > On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 11:29:26AM +0200, Jan Tulak wrote:
> > > > > > diff --git a/mkfs/xfs_mkfs.c b/mkfs/xfs_mkfs.c
> > > > > > index a69190b9..4b030101 100644
> > > > > > --- a/mkfs/xfs_mkfs.c
> > > > > > +++ b/mkfs/xfs_mkfs.c
> > > > > > @@ -107,6 +107,11 @@ unsigned int sectorsize;
> > > > > > * sets what is used with simple specifying the
> > > > > > subopt (-d file).
> > > > > > * A special SUBOPT_NEEDS_VAL can be used to
> > > > > > require a user-given
> > > > > > * value in any case.
> > > > > > + *
> > > > > > + * raw_input INTERNAL
> > > > > > + * Filled raw string from the user, so we never
> > > > > > lose that information e.g.
> > > > > > + * to print it back in case of an issue.
> > > > > > + *
> > > > > > */
> > > > > > struct opt_params {
> > > > > > const char name;
> > > > > > @@ -122,6 +127,7 @@ struct opt_params {
> > > > > > long long minval;
> > > > > > long long maxval;
> > > > > > long long defaultval;
> > > > > > + const char *raw_input;
> > > > > > } subopt_params[MAX_SUBOPTS];
> > > > > > };
> > > > > > @@ -729,6 +735,18 @@ struct opt_params mopts = {
> > > > > > */
> > > > > > #define WHACK_SIZE (128 * 1024)
> > > > > > +static inline void
> > > > > > +set_conf_raw(struct opt_params *opt, int subopt, const char *value)
> > > > > > +{
> > > > > > + opt->subopt_params[subopt].raw_input = value;
> > > > > > +}
> > > > > There are no bounds check on the array here, I think set_conf_raw()
> > > > > should return int and we would check the return value. It could
> > > > > return -EINVAL if the subopt is invalid for instance.
> > > > Good idea. The only issue is with the return code, that causes
> > > > some issues
> > > > when we are also returning values - I wanted the values to be
> > > > turned into
> > > > uint64. But do we need to return an error? I don't see what
> > > > usecase there
> > > > would be for it, other than detecting a bug. So an assert might
> > > > be a better
> > > > solution - then it can't happen that a wrong index is used and
> > > > result not
> > > > tested.
> > > The setting of the value can be done by using an extra argument
> > > pointer. Then
> > > if its set it be assigned. Otherwise it would be left alone. The
> > > return value
> > > would return 0 on success, otherwise a standard return value
> > > indicating the
> > > cause of the error.
> > I strongly prefer to return the value, not an error code. We can do the
> > other way around, put the error code into an argument to get roughly the
> > same result, while constructions like set_conf_raw(FOO, BAR, baz *
> > get_conf_raw(FOO, BAR)) will continue to work without the need for
> > intermediate variables.
> >
> > The *_raw functions are used on few places only, so it would be only a
> > small issue there, but for consistency, (get|set)_conf_val should have
> > the same behavior and an intermediate variable for every use of those
> > would be really annoying. So, how about this?
> >
> > static inline void
> > set_conf_raw(struct opt_params *opt, int subopt, const char *value, int
> > *err)
> > {
> > if (subopt < 0 || subopt >= MAX_SUBOPTS) {
> > if (err != NULL) *err = EINVAL;
> > return;
> > }
> > opt->subopt_params[subopt].raw_input = value;
> > }
> >
> I just realized that there is probably no reason for set_conf_raw to expect
> invalid subopt - that's clearly a bug and we should just print a message and
> die, because who knows what happened... But for errors that can arose from
> user input, the style presented above is still valid.
True however the issue of limiting the context of the use of the pointer
is still present and if you strdup you have to check for ENOMEM. If this
is done in a helper then its done only once, specially if a description
for the subopt is placed into the subopt structure.
Luis
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-xfs" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
