Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756887Ab0BPOFw (ORCPT ); Tue, 16 Feb 2010 09:05:52 -0500 Received: from ixro-out-rtc.ixiacom.com ([92.87.192.98]:1236 "EHLO ixro-ex1.ixiacom.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755720Ab0BPOFu (ORCPT ); Tue, 16 Feb 2010 09:05:50 -0500 From: Octavian Purdila Organization: Ixia To: Cong Wang Subject: Re: [net-next PATCH v4 1/3] sysctl: refactor integer handling proc code Date: Tue, 16 Feb 2010 16:00:54 +0200 User-Agent: KMail/1.12.2 (Linux/2.6.32-2-686; KDE/4.3.2; i686; ; ) Cc: David Miller , Linux Kernel Network Developers , Linux Kernel Developers , "Eric W. Biederman" References: <1266271241-6293-1-git-send-email-opurdila@ixiacom.com> <201002161248.56598.opurdila@ixiacom.com> <4B7A98C7.3070107@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <4B7A98C7.3070107@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <201002161600.54975.opurdila@ixiacom.com> X-OriginalArrivalTime: 16 Feb 2010 14:04:24.0691 (UTC) FILETIME=[F1F0D430:01CAAF10] Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1655 Lines: 40 On Tuesday 16 February 2010 15:08:23 you wrote: > Octavian Purdila wrote: > > On Tuesday 16 February 2010 10:41:07 you wrote: > >>> + > >>> + if (!write && !first && left && !err) > >>> + err = proc_put_newline(&buffer, &left); > >>> + if (write && !err) > >>> + err = proc_skip_wspace(&buffer, &left); > >>> + if (err == -EFAULT /* do we really need to check for -EFAULT? */ > >>> || + (write && first)) > >>> + return err ? : -EINVAL; > >> > >> The logic here seems messy, adding one or two goto's may help? > > > > OK, I'll give it a try. > > > > What about the EFAULT check, is that really required? > > I think so, it means to keep the errno to user-space when it is EFAULT, > right? This seems reasonable. > The problem I see is that this way we don't actually acknowledge some of the set values, e.g. say that we have buffer="1 2 3" and length = 100. Although we do accept values 1, 2 and 3 we don't acknowledge that to the user (as we would do for, say "1 2 3 4a"), but return -EFAULT. I think it would be better to skip this check. That means that the user will get the ack for the 1, 2 and 3 values and next time it continues the write it will get -EFAULT. This will of course change the userspace ABI, albeit in a minor way, and it is not clear to me if doing this is allowed (even if this new approach would be the correct one). -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/