From: Julia Lawall <[email protected]>
Use kstrtoul, etc instead of the now deprecated strict_strtoul, etc.
A semantic patch rule for the kstrtoul case is as follows:
(http://coccinelle.lip6.fr/)
// <smpl>
@@
expression a,b;
{int,long} *c;
@@
-strict_strtoul
+kstrtoul
(a,b,c)
// </smpl>
Signed-off-by: Julia Lawall <[email protected]>
---
net/sunrpc/addr.c | 6 +++---
net/sunrpc/auth.c | 2 +-
net/sunrpc/xprtsock.c | 2 +-
3 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
diff -u -p a/net/sunrpc/addr.c b/net/sunrpc/addr.c
--- a/net/sunrpc/addr.c
+++ b/net/sunrpc/addr.c
@@ -182,7 +182,7 @@ static int rpc_parse_scope_id(const char
scope_id = dev->ifindex;
dev_put(dev);
} else {
- if (strict_strtoul(p, 10, &scope_id) == 0) {
+ if (kstrtoul(p, 10, &scope_id) == 0) {
kfree(p);
return 0;
}
@@ -322,7 +322,7 @@ size_t rpc_uaddr2sockaddr(const char *ua
c = strrchr(buf, '.');
if (unlikely(c == NULL))
return 0;
- if (unlikely(strict_strtoul(c + 1, 10, &portlo) != 0))
+ if (unlikely(kstrtoul(c + 1, 10, &portlo) != 0))
return 0;
if (unlikely(portlo > 255))
return 0;
@@ -331,7 +331,7 @@ size_t rpc_uaddr2sockaddr(const char *ua
c = strrchr(buf, '.');
if (unlikely(c == NULL))
return 0;
- if (unlikely(strict_strtoul(c + 1, 10, &porthi) != 0))
+ if (unlikely(kstrtoul(c + 1, 10, &porthi) != 0))
return 0;
if (unlikely(porthi > 255))
return 0;
diff -u -p a/net/sunrpc/auth.c b/net/sunrpc/auth.c
--- a/net/sunrpc/auth.c
+++ b/net/sunrpc/auth.c
@@ -47,7 +47,7 @@ static int param_set_hashtbl_sz(const ch
if (!val)
goto out_inval;
- ret = strict_strtoul(val, 0, &num);
+ ret = kstrtoul(val, 0, &num);
if (ret == -EINVAL)
goto out_inval;
nbits = fls(num);
diff -u -p a/net/sunrpc/xprtsock.c b/net/sunrpc/xprtsock.c
--- a/net/sunrpc/xprtsock.c
+++ b/net/sunrpc/xprtsock.c
@@ -2925,7 +2925,7 @@ static int param_set_uint_minmax(const c
if (!val)
return -EINVAL;
- ret = strict_strtoul(val, 0, &num);
+ ret = kstrtoul(val, 0, &num);
if (ret == -EINVAL || num < min || num > max)
return -EINVAL;
*((unsigned int *)kp->arg) = num;
On Sun, Nov 06, 2011 at 02:26:47PM +0100, Julia Lawall wrote:
> @@
> expression a,b;
> {int,long} *c;
> @@
>
> -strict_strtoul
> +kstrtoul
No, no, no!
In every case see the type or real data and use appropriate function.
kstrtou8() for ports.
This program creates lots of bogus patches in this case.
> --- a/net/sunrpc/addr.c
> +++ b/net/sunrpc/addr.c
> @@ -322,7 +322,7 @@ size_t rpc_uaddr2sockaddr(const char *ua
> c = strrchr(buf, '.');
> if (unlikely(c == NULL))
> return 0;
> - if (unlikely(strict_strtoul(c + 1, 10, &portlo) != 0))
> + if (unlikely(kstrtoul(c + 1, 10, &portlo) != 0))
> return 0;
> if (unlikely(portlo > 255))
> return 0;
> @@ -331,7 +331,7 @@ size_t rpc_uaddr2sockaddr(const char *ua
> c = strrchr(buf, '.');
> if (unlikely(c == NULL))
> return 0;
> - if (unlikely(strict_strtoul(c + 1, 10, &porthi) != 0))
> + if (unlikely(kstrtoul(c + 1, 10, &porthi) != 0))
> return 0;
> if (unlikely(porthi > 255))
> return 0;
On Tue, Nov 08, 2011 at 09:19:30PM +0100, Julia Lawall wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, 8 Nov 2011, Alexey Dobriyan wrote:
>
> > On Sun, Nov 06, 2011 at 02:26:47PM +0100, Julia Lawall wrote:
> >> @@
> >> expression a,b;
> >> {int,long} *c;
> >> @@
> >>
> >> -strict_strtoul
> >> +kstrtoul
> >
> > No, no, no!
>
> Sorry, this was not the real rule I used for the strtoul case. Instead I
> used the following:
>
> @@
> typedef ulong;
> expression a,b;
> {ulong,unsigned long,unsigned int,size_t} *c;
> @@
>
> -strict_strtoul
> +kstrtoul
> (a,b,c)
>
> But now I have seen that there is a separate function for integers, so I
> have made a rule to use that function when the type is unsigned int.
>
> > In every case see the type or real data and use appropriate function.
> > kstrtou8() for ports.
>
> The type of the destination variable in all of these cases is unsigned
> long. But maybe that is not enough information to make the
> transformation in the right way.
That's because previous functions following libc didn't accept anything
less than unsigned long.
For these conversion, one should literally look at every usecase and
see what types data have for real (not unsigned long) and
make conversion and remove explicit EINVAL checks if necesasry.
In sunrpc case: switch to kstrtou8 + remove "> 255" check.
This program doesn't and won't do that.
On Tue, 8 Nov 2011, Alexey Dobriyan wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 06, 2011 at 02:26:47PM +0100, Julia Lawall wrote:
>> @@
>> expression a,b;
>> {int,long} *c;
>> @@
>>
>> -strict_strtoul
>> +kstrtoul
>
> No, no, no!
Sorry, this was not the real rule I used for the strtoul case. Instead I
used the following:
@@
typedef ulong;
expression a,b;
{ulong,unsigned long,unsigned int,size_t} *c;
@@
-strict_strtoul
+kstrtoul
(a,b,c)
But now I have seen that there is a separate function for integers, so I
have made a rule to use that function when the type is unsigned int.
> In every case see the type or real data and use appropriate function.
> kstrtou8() for ports.
The type of the destination variable in all of these cases is unsigned
long. But maybe that is not enough information to make the
transformation in the right way.
julia
> This program creates lots of bogus patches in this case.
>
>> --- a/net/sunrpc/addr.c
>> +++ b/net/sunrpc/addr.c
>> @@ -322,7 +322,7 @@ size_t rpc_uaddr2sockaddr(const char *ua
>> c = strrchr(buf, '.');
>> if (unlikely(c == NULL))
>> return 0;
>> - if (unlikely(strict_strtoul(c + 1, 10, &portlo) != 0))
>> + if (unlikely(kstrtoul(c + 1, 10, &portlo) != 0))
>> return 0;
>> if (unlikely(portlo > 255))
>> return 0;
>> @@ -331,7 +331,7 @@ size_t rpc_uaddr2sockaddr(const char *ua
>> c = strrchr(buf, '.');
>> if (unlikely(c == NULL))
>> return 0;
>> - if (unlikely(strict_strtoul(c + 1, 10, &porthi) != 0))
>> + if (unlikely(kstrtoul(c + 1, 10, &porthi) != 0))
>> return 0;
>> if (unlikely(porthi > 255))
>> return 0;
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kernel-janitors" in
> the body of a message to [email protected]
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
>
In looking through some examples, I see, e.g.:
if (strict_strtoul(buf, 10, &val) < 0)
return -EINVAL;
if (val < 1 || val > 2)
return -EINVAL;
In this case the only valid values are 1 and 2, which are much smaller
than the u8 range. Is it useful to use kstrtou8 anyway? I see that
kstrtou8 returns -ERANGE not -EINVAL when the value is out of bounds. If
kstrtou8 is to be used, should the subsequent if (val < 1 || val > 2) now
return -ERANGE to be consistent?
julia