[PATCH bpf-next 4/7] libbpf: fix libbpf_strerror_r() handling unknown errors

[Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@kernel.org>]

strerror_r(), used from libbpf-specific libbpf_strerror_r() wrapper is
documented to return error in two different ways, depending on glibc
version. Take that into account when handling strerror_r()'s own errors,
which happens when we pass some non-standard (internal) kernel error to
it. Before this patch we'd have "ERROR: strerror_r(524)=22", which is
quite confusing. Now for the same situation we'll see a bit less
visually scary "unknown error (-524)".

At least we won't confuse user with irrelevant EINVAL (22).

Signed-off-by: Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@kernel.org>
---
 tools/lib/bpf/str_error.c | 16 ++++++++++++++--
 1 file changed, 14 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/tools/lib/bpf/str_error.c b/tools/lib/bpf/str_error.c
index 146da01979c7..5e6a1e27ddf9 100644
--- a/tools/lib/bpf/str_error.c
+++ b/tools/lib/bpf/str_error.c
@@ -2,6 +2,7 @@
 #undef _GNU_SOURCE
 #include <string.h>
 #include <stdio.h>
+#include <errno.h>
 #include "str_error.h"
 
 /* make sure libbpf doesn't use kernel-only integer typedefs */
@@ -15,7 +16,18 @@
 char *libbpf_strerror_r(int err, char *dst, int len)
 {
 	int ret = strerror_r(err < 0 ? -err : err, dst, len);
-	if (ret)
-		snprintf(dst, len, "ERROR: strerror_r(%d)=%d", err, ret);
+	/* on glibc <2.13, ret == -1 and errno is set, if strerror_r() can't
+	 * handle the error, on glibc >=2.13 *positive* (errno-like) error
+	 * code is returned directly
+	 */
+	if (ret == -1)
+		ret = errno;
+	if (ret) {
+		if (ret == EINVAL)
+			/* strerror_r() doesn't recognize this specific error */
+			snprintf(dst, len, "unknown error (%d)", err < 0 ? err : -err);
+		else
+			snprintf(dst, len, "ERROR: strerror_r(%d)=%d", err, ret);
+	}
 	return dst;
 }
-- 
2.43.0