Jan Engelhardt wrote:
> On Tuesday 2010-03-23 15:44, Patrick McHardy wrote:
>
>> Jan Engelhardt wrote:
>>
>>> diff --git a/net/ipv4/netfilter/ipt_LOG.c b/net/ipv4/netfilter/ipt_LOG.c
>>> index c9ee5c4..33213d6 100644
>>> --- a/net/ipv4/netfilter/ipt_LOG.c
>>> +++ b/net/ipv4/netfilter/ipt_LOG.c
>>> @@ -445,7 +445,7 @@ static int log_tg_check(const struct xt_tgchk_param *par)
>>>
>>> if (loginfo->level >= 8) {
>>> pr_debug("level %u >= 8\n", loginfo->level);
>>> - return false;
>>> + return -EDOM;
>>>
>>>
>> Mhh is that really a "Math argument out of domain of func"? ERANGE seems
>> slightly
>> better fitting to me.
>>
>
> I had to look up the difference too, but it's pretty obvious
> (to me at least).
>
> EDOM is for when a function is not defined at a point, such as log(0)
> or divide(1.0, 0.0). Of course you could say "that's ±Inf", but that
> infinity argument I'll leave to academia.
>
> However, "2^63 * 4" for example is well-defined in maths, but
> computers are the limiting factor, hence ERANGE is appropriate in
> this case.
>
>
>
>>> {
>>> + int ret;
>>> +
>>> if (XT_ALIGN(par->match->matchsize) != size &&
>>> par->match->matchsize != -1) {
>>> /*
>>> @@ -399,8 +401,13 @@ int xt_check_match(struct xt_mtchk_param *par,
>>> par->match->proto);
>>> return -EINVAL;
>>> }
>>> - if (par->match->checkentry != NULL && !par->match->checkentry(par))
>>> - return -EINVAL;
>>> + if (par->match->checkentry != NULL) {
>>> + ret = par->match->checkentry(par);
>>> + if (ret < 0)
>>> + return ret;
>>> + else if (ret == 0)
>>> + return -EINVAL;
>>>
>> I'd suggest to do the true/false conversion before this patch. Currently I
>> don't understand the split of these patches, this one keeps lots of boolean
>> return values and initializations, but changes some.
>>
>
> I did this so that the two main changes,
>
> A1. replacing 'return false' by "detailed" code
> (EDOM, etc.)
>
> A2. replacing all remaining bools that did not get a detailed_code
> by EINVAL.
>
> It is also possible to change the order, as in
>
> B1. change everything to EINVAL first
>
> B2. then change EINVAL -> detailed_code.
>
> Should I switch?
Yes, I think that would ease review. Thanks.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netfilter-devel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
