Write_schemata() uses fprintf() to write a bitmask into a schemata file
inside resctrl FS. It checks fprintf() return value but it doesn't check
fclose() return value. Error codes from fprintf() such as write errors,
are buffered and flushed back to the user only after fclose() is executed
which means any invalid bitmask can be written into the schemata file.
Rewrite write_schemata() to use syscalls instead of stdio file
operations to avoid the buffering.
The resctrlfs.c file defines functions that interact with the resctrl FS
while resctrl_val.c file defines functions that perform measurements on
the cache. Run_benchmark() fits logically into the second file before
resctrl_val() function that uses it.
Move run_benchmark() from resctrlfs.c to resctrl_val.c and remove
redundant part of the kernel-doc comment. Make run_benchmark() static
and remove it from the header file.
Patch series is based on [1] which is based on [2] which are based on
ksefltest next branch.
Changelog v4:
- Change git signature from Wieczor-Retman Maciej to Maciej
Wieczor-Retman.
- Rebase onto [1] which is based on [2]. (Reinette)
- Add fcntl.h explicitly to provide glibc backward compatibility.
(Reinette)
Changelog v3:
- Use snprintf() return value instead of strlen() in write_schemata().
(Ilpo)
- Make run_benchmark() static and remove it from the header file.
(Reinette)
- Added Ilpo's reviewed-by tag to Patch 2/2.
- Patch messages and cover letter rewording.
Changelog v2:
- Change sprintf() to snprintf() in write_schemata().
- Redo write_schemata() with syscalls instead of stdio functions.
- Fix typos and missing dots in patch messages.
- Branch printf attribute patch to a separate series.
[v1] https://lore.kernel.org/all/[email protected]/
[v2] https://lore.kernel.org/all/[email protected]/
[v3] https://lore.kernel.org/all/[email protected]/
[1] https://lore.kernel.org/all/[email protected]/
[2] https://lore.kernel.org/all/[email protected]/
Maciej Wieczor-Retman (2):
selftests/resctrl: Fix schemata write error check
selftests/resctrl: Move run_benchmark() to a more fitting file
tools/testing/selftests/resctrl/resctrl.h | 1 -
tools/testing/selftests/resctrl/resctrl_val.c | 50 +++++++++++
tools/testing/selftests/resctrl/resctrlfs.c | 82 ++++---------------
3 files changed, 67 insertions(+), 66 deletions(-)
base-commit: 3b3e8a34b1d50c2c5c6b030dab7682b123162cb4
--
2.42.0
Writing bitmasks to the schemata can fail when the bitmask doesn't
adhere to constraints defined by what a particular CPU supports.
Some example of constraints are max length or having contiguous bits.
The driver should properly return errors when any rule concerning
bitmask format is broken.
Resctrl FS returns error codes from fprintf() only when fclose() is
called. Current error checking scheme allows invalid bitmasks to be
written into schemata file and the selftest doesn't notice because the
fclose() error code isn't checked.
Substitute fopen(), flose() and fprintf() with open(), close() and
write() to avoid error code buffering between fprintf() and fclose().
Remove newline character from the schema string after writing it to
the schemata file so it prints correctly before function return.
Pass the string generated with strerror() to the "reason" buffer so
the error message is more verbose. Extend "reason" buffer so it can hold
longer messages.
Signed-off-by: Maciej Wieczor-Retman <[email protected]>
---
Changelog v4:
- Unify error checking between open() and write(). (Reinette)
- Add fcntl.h for glibc backward compatiblitiy. (Reinette)
Changelog v3:
- Rename fp to fd. (Ilpo)
- Remove strlen, strcspn and just use the snprintf value instead. (Ilpo)
Changelog v2:
- Rewrite patch message.
- Double "reason" buffer size to fit longer error explanation.
- Redo file interactions with syscalls instead of stdio functions.
tools/testing/selftests/resctrl/resctrlfs.c | 30 ++++++++++++---------
1 file changed, 17 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-)
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/resctrl/resctrlfs.c b/tools/testing/selftests/resctrl/resctrlfs.c
index 3a8111362d26..edc8fc6e44b0 100644
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/resctrl/resctrlfs.c
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/resctrl/resctrlfs.c
@@ -8,6 +8,7 @@
* Sai Praneeth Prakhya <[email protected]>,
* Fenghua Yu <[email protected]>
*/
+#include <fcntl.h>
#include <limits.h>
#include "resctrl.h"
@@ -490,9 +491,8 @@ int write_bm_pid_to_resctrl(pid_t bm_pid, char *ctrlgrp, char *mongrp,
*/
int write_schemata(char *ctrlgrp, char *schemata, int cpu_no, char *resctrl_val)
{
- char controlgroup[1024], schema[1024], reason[64];
- int resource_id, ret = 0;
- FILE *fp;
+ char controlgroup[1024], schema[1024], reason[128];
+ int resource_id, fd, schema_len = -1, ret = 0;
if (strncmp(resctrl_val, MBA_STR, sizeof(MBA_STR)) &&
strncmp(resctrl_val, MBM_STR, sizeof(MBM_STR)) &&
@@ -520,27 +520,31 @@ int write_schemata(char *ctrlgrp, char *schemata, int cpu_no, char *resctrl_val)
if (!strncmp(resctrl_val, CAT_STR, sizeof(CAT_STR)) ||
!strncmp(resctrl_val, CMT_STR, sizeof(CMT_STR)))
- sprintf(schema, "%s%d%c%s", "L3:", resource_id, '=', schemata);
+ schema_len = snprintf(schema, sizeof(schema), "%s%d%c%s\n",
+ "L3:", resource_id, '=', schemata);
if (!strncmp(resctrl_val, MBA_STR, sizeof(MBA_STR)) ||
!strncmp(resctrl_val, MBM_STR, sizeof(MBM_STR)))
- sprintf(schema, "%s%d%c%s", "MB:", resource_id, '=', schemata);
+ schema_len = snprintf(schema, sizeof(schema), "%s%d%c%s\n",
+ "MB:", resource_id, '=', schemata);
- fp = fopen(controlgroup, "w");
- if (!fp) {
- sprintf(reason, "Failed to open control group");
+ fd = open(controlgroup, O_WRONLY);
+ if (!fd) {
+ snprintf(reason, sizeof(reason),
+ "open() failed : %s", strerror(errno));
ret = -1;
goto out;
}
-
- if (fprintf(fp, "%s\n", schema) < 0) {
- sprintf(reason, "Failed to write schemata in control group");
- fclose(fp);
+ if (write(fd, schema, schema_len) < 0) {
+ snprintf(reason, sizeof(reason),
+ "write() failed : %s", strerror(errno));
+ close(fd);
ret = -1;
goto out;
}
- fclose(fp);
+ close(fd);
+ schema[schema_len - 1] = 0;
out:
ksft_print_msg("Write schema \"%s\" to resctrl FS%s%s\n",
--
2.42.0
Hi Maciej,
On 9/22/2023 1:09 AM, Maciej Wieczor-Retman wrote:
> The resctrlfs.c file defines functions that interact with the resctrl FS
> while resctrl_val.c file defines functions that perform measurements on
> the cache. Run_benchmark() fits logically into the second file before
> resctrl_val() function that uses it.
nitpick ... if there are comments in one patch of the series please consider
if it applies to other places in the series.
>
> Move run_benchmark() from resctrlfs.c to resctrl_val.c and remove
> redundant part of the kernel-doc comment. Make run_benchmark() static
> and remove it from the header file.
>
> Patch series is based on [1] which is based on [2] which are based on
> ksefltest next branch.
ksefltest -> kselftest
Reinette
Hi, thanks for the review!
On 2023-09-27 at 15:15:06 -0700, Reinette Chatre wrote:
>Hi Maciej,
>
>On 9/22/2023 1:10 AM, Maciej Wieczor-Retman wrote:
>> Writing bitmasks to the schemata can fail when the bitmask doesn't
>> adhere to constraints defined by what a particular CPU supports.
>> Some example of constraints are max length or having contiguous bits.
>> The driver should properly return errors when any rule concerning
>> bitmask format is broken.
>>
>> Resctrl FS returns error codes from fprintf() only when fclose() is
>> called. Current error checking scheme allows invalid bitmasks to be
>> written into schemata file and the selftest doesn't notice because the
>> fclose() error code isn't checked.
>>
>> Substitute fopen(), flose() and fprintf() with open(), close() and
>> write() to avoid error code buffering between fprintf() and fclose().
>>
>> Remove newline character from the schema string after writing it to
>> the schemata file so it prints correctly before function return.
>>
>> Pass the string generated with strerror() to the "reason" buffer so
>> the error message is more verbose. Extend "reason" buffer so it can hold
>> longer messages.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Maciej Wieczor-Retman <[email protected]>
>> ---
>> Changelog v4:
>> - Unify error checking between open() and write(). (Reinette)
>> - Add fcntl.h for glibc backward compatiblitiy. (Reinette)
>>
>> Changelog v3:
>> - Rename fp to fd. (Ilpo)
>> - Remove strlen, strcspn and just use the snprintf value instead. (Ilpo)
>>
>> Changelog v2:
>> - Rewrite patch message.
>> - Double "reason" buffer size to fit longer error explanation.
>> - Redo file interactions with syscalls instead of stdio functions.
>>
>> tools/testing/selftests/resctrl/resctrlfs.c | 30 ++++++++++++---------
>> 1 file changed, 17 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/resctrl/resctrlfs.c b/tools/testing/selftests/resctrl/resctrlfs.c
>> index 3a8111362d26..edc8fc6e44b0 100644
>> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/resctrl/resctrlfs.c
>> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/resctrl/resctrlfs.c
>> @@ -8,6 +8,7 @@
>> * Sai Praneeth Prakhya <[email protected]>,
>> * Fenghua Yu <[email protected]>
>> */
>> +#include <fcntl.h>
>> #include <limits.h>
>>
>> #include "resctrl.h"
>> @@ -490,9 +491,8 @@ int write_bm_pid_to_resctrl(pid_t bm_pid, char *ctrlgrp, char *mongrp,
>> */
>> int write_schemata(char *ctrlgrp, char *schemata, int cpu_no, char *resctrl_val)
>> {
>> - char controlgroup[1024], schema[1024], reason[64];
>> - int resource_id, ret = 0;
>> - FILE *fp;
>> + char controlgroup[1024], schema[1024], reason[128];
>> + int resource_id, fd, schema_len = -1, ret = 0;
>
>I am trying to understand the schema_len initialization. Could
>you please elaborate why you chose -1? I'm a bit concerned with
>the robustness here with it being used as an unsigned integer
>in write() and also the negative array index later.
My idea was that if the initial value for schema_len was 0, then if
resctrl_val wouldn't equal any of MBA_STR, MBM_STR, CAT_STR, CMT_STR
values schema_len would stay zero and write nothing.
I think it would be difficult to debug such an error because even later
in ksft_print_msg the requested schema would get printed as if there was
no error. In the case I mentioned above the function will just error out
which I assume could be helpful.
Other solutions that can accomplish the same goal would be checking
write() not only for negative values but also for zero (since in
here this is pretty much an error). Or checking schema_len for only
positive values after the block of code where it gets assigned a
value from sprintf.
Are any of the above safer or more logical in your opinion?
>>
>> if (strncmp(resctrl_val, MBA_STR, sizeof(MBA_STR)) &&
>> strncmp(resctrl_val, MBM_STR, sizeof(MBM_STR)) &&
>> @@ -520,27 +520,31 @@ int write_schemata(char *ctrlgrp, char *schemata, int cpu_no, char *resctrl_val)
>>
>> if (!strncmp(resctrl_val, CAT_STR, sizeof(CAT_STR)) ||
>> !strncmp(resctrl_val, CMT_STR, sizeof(CMT_STR)))
>> - sprintf(schema, "%s%d%c%s", "L3:", resource_id, '=', schemata);
>> + schema_len = snprintf(schema, sizeof(schema), "%s%d%c%s\n",
>> + "L3:", resource_id, '=', schemata);
>> if (!strncmp(resctrl_val, MBA_STR, sizeof(MBA_STR)) ||
>> !strncmp(resctrl_val, MBM_STR, sizeof(MBM_STR)))
>> - sprintf(schema, "%s%d%c%s", "MB:", resource_id, '=', schemata);
>> + schema_len = snprintf(schema, sizeof(schema), "%s%d%c%s\n",
>> + "MB:", resource_id, '=', schemata);
>>
>> - fp = fopen(controlgroup, "w");
>> - if (!fp) {
>> - sprintf(reason, "Failed to open control group");
>> + fd = open(controlgroup, O_WRONLY);
>> + if (!fd) {
>
>Be careful ... the error checking appropriate to the original
>pointer needs a double check with this new usage.
>According to "man 2 open" - open() returns -1 on error so I expect
>that this should rather be:
> if (fd < 0) {
>or
> if (fd == -1) {
>
>The rest looks good to me.
Thanks for catching this, that is very helpful.
--
Kind regards
Maciej Wiecz?r-Retman
Thanks for catching these, I'll remember to do that the next time.
On 2023-09-27 at 15:16:18 -0700, Reinette Chatre wrote:
>Hi Maciej,
>
>On 9/22/2023 1:09 AM, Maciej Wieczor-Retman wrote:
>> The resctrlfs.c file defines functions that interact with the resctrl FS
>> while resctrl_val.c file defines functions that perform measurements on
>> the cache. Run_benchmark() fits logically into the second file before
>> resctrl_val() function that uses it.
>
>nitpick ... if there are comments in one patch of the series please consider
>if it applies to other places in the series.
>
>>
>> Move run_benchmark() from resctrlfs.c to resctrl_val.c and remove
>> redundant part of the kernel-doc comment. Make run_benchmark() static
>> and remove it from the header file.
>>
>> Patch series is based on [1] which is based on [2] which are based on
>> ksefltest next branch.
>
>ksefltest -> kselftest
>
>Reinette
--
Kind regards
Maciej Wiecz?r-Retman
Hi Maciej,
On 9/22/2023 1:10 AM, Maciej Wieczor-Retman wrote:
> Writing bitmasks to the schemata can fail when the bitmask doesn't
> adhere to constraints defined by what a particular CPU supports.
> Some example of constraints are max length or having contiguous bits.
> The driver should properly return errors when any rule concerning
> bitmask format is broken.
>
> Resctrl FS returns error codes from fprintf() only when fclose() is
> called. Current error checking scheme allows invalid bitmasks to be
> written into schemata file and the selftest doesn't notice because the
> fclose() error code isn't checked.
>
> Substitute fopen(), flose() and fprintf() with open(), close() and
> write() to avoid error code buffering between fprintf() and fclose().
>
> Remove newline character from the schema string after writing it to
> the schemata file so it prints correctly before function return.
>
> Pass the string generated with strerror() to the "reason" buffer so
> the error message is more verbose. Extend "reason" buffer so it can hold
> longer messages.
>
> Signed-off-by: Maciej Wieczor-Retman <[email protected]>
> ---
> Changelog v4:
> - Unify error checking between open() and write(). (Reinette)
> - Add fcntl.h for glibc backward compatiblitiy. (Reinette)
>
> Changelog v3:
> - Rename fp to fd. (Ilpo)
> - Remove strlen, strcspn and just use the snprintf value instead. (Ilpo)
>
> Changelog v2:
> - Rewrite patch message.
> - Double "reason" buffer size to fit longer error explanation.
> - Redo file interactions with syscalls instead of stdio functions.
>
> tools/testing/selftests/resctrl/resctrlfs.c | 30 ++++++++++++---------
> 1 file changed, 17 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/resctrl/resctrlfs.c b/tools/testing/selftests/resctrl/resctrlfs.c
> index 3a8111362d26..edc8fc6e44b0 100644
> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/resctrl/resctrlfs.c
> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/resctrl/resctrlfs.c
> @@ -8,6 +8,7 @@
> * Sai Praneeth Prakhya <[email protected]>,
> * Fenghua Yu <[email protected]>
> */
> +#include <fcntl.h>
> #include <limits.h>
>
> #include "resctrl.h"
> @@ -490,9 +491,8 @@ int write_bm_pid_to_resctrl(pid_t bm_pid, char *ctrlgrp, char *mongrp,
> */
> int write_schemata(char *ctrlgrp, char *schemata, int cpu_no, char *resctrl_val)
> {
> - char controlgroup[1024], schema[1024], reason[64];
> - int resource_id, ret = 0;
> - FILE *fp;
> + char controlgroup[1024], schema[1024], reason[128];
> + int resource_id, fd, schema_len = -1, ret = 0;
I am trying to understand the schema_len initialization. Could
you please elaborate why you chose -1? I'm a bit concerned with
the robustness here with it being used as an unsigned integer
in write() and also the negative array index later.
>
> if (strncmp(resctrl_val, MBA_STR, sizeof(MBA_STR)) &&
> strncmp(resctrl_val, MBM_STR, sizeof(MBM_STR)) &&
> @@ -520,27 +520,31 @@ int write_schemata(char *ctrlgrp, char *schemata, int cpu_no, char *resctrl_val)
>
> if (!strncmp(resctrl_val, CAT_STR, sizeof(CAT_STR)) ||
> !strncmp(resctrl_val, CMT_STR, sizeof(CMT_STR)))
> - sprintf(schema, "%s%d%c%s", "L3:", resource_id, '=', schemata);
> + schema_len = snprintf(schema, sizeof(schema), "%s%d%c%s\n",
> + "L3:", resource_id, '=', schemata);
> if (!strncmp(resctrl_val, MBA_STR, sizeof(MBA_STR)) ||
> !strncmp(resctrl_val, MBM_STR, sizeof(MBM_STR)))
> - sprintf(schema, "%s%d%c%s", "MB:", resource_id, '=', schemata);
> + schema_len = snprintf(schema, sizeof(schema), "%s%d%c%s\n",
> + "MB:", resource_id, '=', schemata);
>
> - fp = fopen(controlgroup, "w");
> - if (!fp) {
> - sprintf(reason, "Failed to open control group");
> + fd = open(controlgroup, O_WRONLY);
> + if (!fd) {
Be careful ... the error checking appropriate to the original
pointer needs a double check with this new usage.
According to "man 2 open" - open() returns -1 on error so I expect
that this should rather be:
if (fd < 0) {
or
if (fd == -1) {
The rest looks good to me.
Reinette
Hi Maciej,
On 9/27/2023 11:46 PM, Maciej Wieczór-Retman wrote:
> On 2023-09-27 at 15:15:06 -0700, Reinette Chatre wrote:
>> On 9/22/2023 1:10 AM, Maciej Wieczor-Retman wrote:
>>> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/resctrl/resctrlfs.c b/tools/testing/selftests/resctrl/resctrlfs.c
>>> index 3a8111362d26..edc8fc6e44b0 100644
>>> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/resctrl/resctrlfs.c
>>> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/resctrl/resctrlfs.c
>>> @@ -8,6 +8,7 @@
>>> * Sai Praneeth Prakhya <[email protected]>,
>>> * Fenghua Yu <[email protected]>
>>> */
>>> +#include <fcntl.h>
>>> #include <limits.h>
>>>
>>> #include "resctrl.h"
>>> @@ -490,9 +491,8 @@ int write_bm_pid_to_resctrl(pid_t bm_pid, char *ctrlgrp, char *mongrp,
>>> */
>>> int write_schemata(char *ctrlgrp, char *schemata, int cpu_no, char *resctrl_val)
>>> {
>>> - char controlgroup[1024], schema[1024], reason[64];
>>> - int resource_id, ret = 0;
>>> - FILE *fp;
>>> + char controlgroup[1024], schema[1024], reason[128];
>>> + int resource_id, fd, schema_len = -1, ret = 0;
>>
>> I am trying to understand the schema_len initialization. Could
>> you please elaborate why you chose -1? I'm a bit concerned with
>> the robustness here with it being used as an unsigned integer
>> in write() and also the negative array index later.
>
> My idea was that if the initial value for schema_len was 0, then if
> resctrl_val wouldn't equal any of MBA_STR, MBM_STR, CAT_STR, CMT_STR
Ensuring that resctrl_val is equal to one of these seems to be the
first thing write_schemata() does.
> values schema_len would stay zero and write nothing.
Your alternative writes "-1". write() is declared as:
ssize_t write(int fd, const void *buf, size_t count);
note that "count" is size_t, which is an unsigned value. Providing
it -1 is thus a very large number and likely to cause overflow. In fact
if I even try to compile a program where the compiler can figure out
count will be -1 it fails the compile (stringop-overflow).
> I think it would be difficult to debug such an error because even later
> in ksft_print_msg the requested schema would get printed as if there was
> no error. In the case I mentioned above the function will just error out
> which I assume could be helpful.
You seem to rely on write() to cleanly catch giving it bad data.
> Other solutions that can accomplish the same goal would be checking
> write() not only for negative values but also for zero (since in
> here this is pretty much an error). Or checking schema_len for only
> positive values after the block of code where it gets assigned a
> value from sprintf.
>
> Are any of the above safer or more logical in your opinion?
There is no error checking on schema_len. After it has been initialized it
can be checked for errors and write_schemata() can be exited immediately if
an error was encountered without attempting the write().
Reinette
On 2023-09-28 at 14:25:23 -0700, Reinette Chatre wrote:
>Hi Maciej,
>
>On 9/27/2023 11:46 PM, Maciej Wiecz?r-Retman wrote:
>> On 2023-09-27 at 15:15:06 -0700, Reinette Chatre wrote:
>>> On 9/22/2023 1:10 AM, Maciej Wieczor-Retman wrote:
>
>>>> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/resctrl/resctrlfs.c b/tools/testing/selftests/resctrl/resctrlfs.c
>>>> index 3a8111362d26..edc8fc6e44b0 100644
>>>> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/resctrl/resctrlfs.c
>>>> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/resctrl/resctrlfs.c
>>>> @@ -8,6 +8,7 @@
>>>> * Sai Praneeth Prakhya <[email protected]>,
>>>> * Fenghua Yu <[email protected]>
>>>> */
>>>> +#include <fcntl.h>
>>>> #include <limits.h>
>>>>
>>>> #include "resctrl.h"
>>>> @@ -490,9 +491,8 @@ int write_bm_pid_to_resctrl(pid_t bm_pid, char *ctrlgrp, char *mongrp,
>>>> */
>>>> int write_schemata(char *ctrlgrp, char *schemata, int cpu_no, char *resctrl_val)
>>>> {
>>>> - char controlgroup[1024], schema[1024], reason[64];
>>>> - int resource_id, ret = 0;
>>>> - FILE *fp;
>>>> + char controlgroup[1024], schema[1024], reason[128];
>>>> + int resource_id, fd, schema_len = -1, ret = 0;
>>>
>>> I am trying to understand the schema_len initialization. Could
>>> you please elaborate why you chose -1? I'm a bit concerned with
>>> the robustness here with it being used as an unsigned integer
>>> in write() and also the negative array index later.
>>
>> My idea was that if the initial value for schema_len was 0, then if
>> resctrl_val wouldn't equal any of MBA_STR, MBM_STR, CAT_STR, CMT_STR
>
>Ensuring that resctrl_val is equal to one of these seems to be the
>first thing write_schemata() does.
Right, sorry, then I guess initializing it to zero isn't a problem.
>> values schema_len would stay zero and write nothing.
>
>Your alternative writes "-1". write() is declared as:
> ssize_t write(int fd, const void *buf, size_t count);
>
>note that "count" is size_t, which is an unsigned value. Providing
>it -1 is thus a very large number and likely to cause overflow. In fact
>if I even try to compile a program where the compiler can figure out
>count will be -1 it fails the compile (stringop-overflow).
I tried compiling and running by passing a value with scanf to write()
(so the compiler doesn't know it's a negative one) just to check if
it behaves and write() was returning a negative one. But yes, the fact
it's unsigned means it's not a reliable way to catch this error.
>> I think it would be difficult to debug such an error because even later
>> in ksft_print_msg the requested schema would get printed as if there was
>> no error. In the case I mentioned above the function will just error out
>> which I assume could be helpful.
>
>You seem to rely on write() to cleanly catch giving it bad data.
>
>> Other solutions that can accomplish the same goal would be checking
>> write() not only for negative values but also for zero (since in
>> here this is pretty much an error). Or checking schema_len for only
>> positive values after the block of code where it gets assigned a
>> value from sprintf.
>>
>> Are any of the above safer or more logical in your opinion?
>
>There is no error checking on schema_len. After it has been initialized it
>can be checked for errors and write_schemata() can be exited immediately if
>an error was encountered without attempting the write().
Okay, thanks a lot for pointing all this out. I'll do just a less than
one check and move the initial value to zero.
--
Kind regards
Maciej Wiecz?r-Retman