We know "err" is zero so we can remove these and pull the code in one
indent level.
Signed-off-by: Dan Carpenter <[email protected]>
---
This applies to the BPF tree (linux-next)
diff --git a/kernel/bpf/btf.c b/kernel/bpf/btf.c
index e631b6fd60d3..7cb0905f37c2 100644
--- a/kernel/bpf/btf.c
+++ b/kernel/bpf/btf.c
@@ -1973,16 +1973,14 @@ static struct btf *btf_parse(void __user *btf_data, u32 btf_data_size,
if (err)
goto errout;
- if (!err && log->level && bpf_verifier_log_full(log)) {
+ if (log->level && bpf_verifier_log_full(log)) {
err = -ENOSPC;
goto errout;
}
- if (!err) {
- btf_verifier_env_free(env);
- btf_get(btf);
- return btf;
- }
+ btf_verifier_env_free(env);
+ btf_get(btf);
+ return btf;
errout:
btf_verifier_env_free(env);
On Fri, Apr 27, 2018 at 05:04:59PM +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> We know "err" is zero so we can remove these and pull the code in one
> indent level.
>
> Signed-off-by: Dan Carpenter <[email protected]>
Thanks for the simplification!
Acked-by: Martin KaFai Lau <[email protected]>
> ---
> This applies to the BPF tree (linux-next)
>
> diff --git a/kernel/bpf/btf.c b/kernel/bpf/btf.c
> index e631b6fd60d3..7cb0905f37c2 100644
> --- a/kernel/bpf/btf.c
> +++ b/kernel/bpf/btf.c
> @@ -1973,16 +1973,14 @@ static struct btf *btf_parse(void __user *btf_data, u32 btf_data_size,
> if (err)
> goto errout;
>
> - if (!err && log->level && bpf_verifier_log_full(log)) {
> + if (log->level && bpf_verifier_log_full(log)) {
> err = -ENOSPC;
> goto errout;
> }
>
> - if (!err) {
> - btf_verifier_env_free(env);
> - btf_get(btf);
> - return btf;
> - }
> + btf_verifier_env_free(env);
> + btf_get(btf);
> + return btf;
>
> errout:
> btf_verifier_env_free(env);
On Fri, Apr 27, 2018 at 10:20:25AM -0700, Martin KaFai Lau wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 27, 2018 at 05:04:59PM +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> > We know "err" is zero so we can remove these and pull the code in one
> > indent level.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Dan Carpenter <[email protected]>
> Thanks for the simplification!
>
> Acked-by: Martin KaFai Lau <[email protected]>
btw, it should be for bpf-next. Please tag the subject with bpf-next when
you respin. Thanks!
>
> > ---
> > This applies to the BPF tree (linux-next)
> >
> > diff --git a/kernel/bpf/btf.c b/kernel/bpf/btf.c
> > index e631b6fd60d3..7cb0905f37c2 100644
> > --- a/kernel/bpf/btf.c
> > +++ b/kernel/bpf/btf.c
> > @@ -1973,16 +1973,14 @@ static struct btf *btf_parse(void __user *btf_data, u32 btf_data_size,
> > if (err)
> > goto errout;
> >
> > - if (!err && log->level && bpf_verifier_log_full(log)) {
> > + if (log->level && bpf_verifier_log_full(log)) {
> > err = -ENOSPC;
> > goto errout;
> > }
> >
> > - if (!err) {
> > - btf_verifier_env_free(env);
> > - btf_get(btf);
> > - return btf;
> > - }
> > + btf_verifier_env_free(env);
> > + btf_get(btf);
> > + return btf;
> >
> > errout:
> > btf_verifier_env_free(env);
On Fri, Apr 27, 2018 at 10:55:46AM -0700, Martin KaFai Lau wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 27, 2018 at 10:20:25AM -0700, Martin KaFai Lau wrote:
> > On Fri, Apr 27, 2018 at 05:04:59PM +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> > > We know "err" is zero so we can remove these and pull the code in one
> > > indent level.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Dan Carpenter <[email protected]>
> > Thanks for the simplification!
> >
> > Acked-by: Martin KaFai Lau <[email protected]>
> btw, it should be for bpf-next. Please tag the subject with bpf-next when
> you respin. Thanks!
>
I'm working against linux-next. For networking, I have a separate tree
which I use to figure out if it's in net or net-next. It's kind of a
headache (but obviously networking is the largest subtree so it's
required).
Is there an automated way to tie a Fixes tag from linux-next to a
subtree?
regards,
dan carpenter
On 04/27/2018 09:39 PM, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 27, 2018 at 10:55:46AM -0700, Martin KaFai Lau wrote:
>> On Fri, Apr 27, 2018 at 10:20:25AM -0700, Martin KaFai Lau wrote:
>>> On Fri, Apr 27, 2018 at 05:04:59PM +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote:
>>>> We know "err" is zero so we can remove these and pull the code in one
>>>> indent level.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Dan Carpenter <[email protected]>
>>> Thanks for the simplification!
>>>
>>> Acked-by: Martin KaFai Lau <[email protected]>
>> btw, it should be for bpf-next. Please tag the subject with bpf-next when
>> you respin. Thanks!
Dan, thanks a lot for your fixes! Please respin with addressing Martin's
feedback when you get a chance.
Thanks,
Daniel
On Fri, Apr 27, 2018 at 10:21:17PM +0200, Daniel Borkmann wrote:
> On 04/27/2018 09:39 PM, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> > On Fri, Apr 27, 2018 at 10:55:46AM -0700, Martin KaFai Lau wrote:
> >> On Fri, Apr 27, 2018 at 10:20:25AM -0700, Martin KaFai Lau wrote:
> >>> On Fri, Apr 27, 2018 at 05:04:59PM +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> >>>> We know "err" is zero so we can remove these and pull the code in one
> >>>> indent level.
> >>>>
> >>>> Signed-off-by: Dan Carpenter <[email protected]>
> >>> Thanks for the simplification!
> >>>
> >>> Acked-by: Martin KaFai Lau <[email protected]>
> >> btw, it should be for bpf-next. Please tag the subject with bpf-next when
> >> you respin. Thanks!
>
> Dan, thanks a lot for your fixes! Please respin with addressing Martin's
> feedback when you get a chance.
>
My understanding is that he'd prefer we just ignore the static checker
warning since it's a false positive. Should I instead initialize the
size to zero or something just to silence it?
regards,
dan carpenter
On Fri, Apr 27, 2018 at 11:31:36PM +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 27, 2018 at 10:21:17PM +0200, Daniel Borkmann wrote:
> > On 04/27/2018 09:39 PM, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> > > On Fri, Apr 27, 2018 at 10:55:46AM -0700, Martin KaFai Lau wrote:
> > >> On Fri, Apr 27, 2018 at 10:20:25AM -0700, Martin KaFai Lau wrote:
> > >>> On Fri, Apr 27, 2018 at 05:04:59PM +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> > >>>> We know "err" is zero so we can remove these and pull the code in one
> > >>>> indent level.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Signed-off-by: Dan Carpenter <[email protected]>
> > >>> Thanks for the simplification!
> > >>>
> > >>> Acked-by: Martin KaFai Lau <[email protected]>
> > >> btw, it should be for bpf-next. Please tag the subject with bpf-next when
> > >> you respin. Thanks!
> >
> > Dan, thanks a lot for your fixes! Please respin with addressing Martin's
> > feedback when you get a chance.
> >
>
> My understanding is that he'd prefer we just ignore the static checker
> warning since it's a false positive.
Right, I think patch 1 is not needed. I would prefer to use a comment
in those cases.
> Should I instead initialize the
> size to zero or something just to silence it?
>
> regards,
> dan carpenter
>
On Fri, Apr 27, 2018 at 02:26:50PM -0700, Martin KaFai Lau wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 27, 2018 at 11:31:36PM +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> > On Fri, Apr 27, 2018 at 10:21:17PM +0200, Daniel Borkmann wrote:
> > > On 04/27/2018 09:39 PM, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> > > > On Fri, Apr 27, 2018 at 10:55:46AM -0700, Martin KaFai Lau wrote:
> > > >> On Fri, Apr 27, 2018 at 10:20:25AM -0700, Martin KaFai Lau wrote:
> > > >>> On Fri, Apr 27, 2018 at 05:04:59PM +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> > > >>>> We know "err" is zero so we can remove these and pull the code in one
> > > >>>> indent level.
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> Signed-off-by: Dan Carpenter <[email protected]>
> > > >>> Thanks for the simplification!
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Acked-by: Martin KaFai Lau <[email protected]>
> > > >> btw, it should be for bpf-next. Please tag the subject with bpf-next when
> > > >> you respin. Thanks!
> > >
> > > Dan, thanks a lot for your fixes! Please respin with addressing Martin's
> > > feedback when you get a chance.
> > >
> >
> > My understanding is that he'd prefer we just ignore the static checker
> > warning since it's a false positive.
> Right, I think patch 1 is not needed. I would prefer to use a comment
> in those cases.
>
> > Should I instead initialize the
> > size to zero or something just to silence it?
After another thought, I think init size to zero is
fine which is less intrusive.
Thanks!
Martin
> >
> > regards,
> > dan carpenter
> >