Re: [PATCH] err_ptr.h: introduce ERR_PTR_SAFE()

[David Laight <david.laight.linux@gmail.com>]

On Mon, 18 May 2026 11:52:06 +0200
Amir Goldstein <amir73il@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Mon, May 18, 2026 at 11:04 AM Rasmus Villemoes <ravi@prevas.dk> wrote:
> >
> > On Sat, May 16 2026, Amir Goldstein <amir73il@gmail.com> wrote:
> >  
> > > On Sat, May 16, 2026 at 10:42 AM David Laight
> > > <david.laight.linux@gmail.com> wrote:  
> > >>
> > >> On Fri, 15 May 2026 21:26:04 +0200
> > >> Amir Goldstein <amir73il@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >>  
> > >> > On Fri, May 15, 2026 at 8:30 PM David Laight
> > >> > <david.laight.linux@gmail.com> wrote:  
> > >> > >
> > >> > > On Thu, 14 May 2026 22:01:29 +0200
> > >> > > Amir Goldstein <amir73il@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >> > >  
> > >> ...  
> > >> > >
> > >> > > The object code bloat would be noticeable if this were used everywhere.
> > >> > > But you could make it a bit simpler:
> > >> > >         if (__builtin_constant_p(__e))
> > >> > >                 BUILD_BUG_ON(__e && !IS_ERR_VALUE(__e));
> > >> > >         else if WARN_ON(__e && !IS_ERR_VALUE(__e))
> > >> > >                 __e = -MAX_ERRNO; // Or maybe -EINVAL to stop and other boundary errors
> > >> > >         (void *)__e;  
> > >> >
> > >> > Yeh that's nicer thanks.  
> > >>
> > >> Actually this might be better still (or just more succinct):
> > >>         void *__e = (void *)error;
> > >>         BUILD_BUG_ON(!statically_true(IS_ERR_OR_NULL(__e));  
> > >
> > > This condition is wrong but also my compiler does not evaluate
> > > __builtin_constant_p(IS_ERR_OR_NULL(__e)) as true.
> > >
> > > This works
> > > BUILD_BUG_ON(statically_true(!IS_ERR_VALUE(__e)));
> > >
> > > I think it is enough to statically assert on ERR_PTR(EINVAL)
> > > and no need to bother with ERR_PTR(0)
> > >  
> > >>         if (WARN_ON(!IS_ERR_OR_NULL(__e))
> > >>                 __e = (void *)-EINVAL;  
> > >
> > > Oh, anything but EINVAL please - the most overloaded error value
> > > My choice of meaningful error value would be EFAULT  
> >
> > Could we have a dedicated "EBUG" that can be used to indicate "there's a
> > bug somewhere in the kernel, we can handle it somewhat gracefully here
> > by returning an error instead of BUG(). You can't do anything about it
> > but report that you got -EBUG from $this_syscall", instead of
> > overloading EIO, EFAULT, EINVAL or whatnot. Internally, EBUG could be a
> > macro that did ({ WARN_ONCE(); -__EBUG; }) or something, so there would
> > automatically be bread crumbs in dmesg if it is ever hit.  
> 
> How exactly would you use this EBUG() to write the graceful handling?
> A bit of overengineering if you ask me.
> 
> >
> > Userspace code could also benefit from having EBUG to indicate that some
> > internal inconsistency has been detected.  
> 
> So what about
> 
> #define EBUG MAX_ERRNO
> 
> as per my suggested patch.

Your are relying on there being no 'off-by-one' errors.
They happen...

-- David

> 
> Thanks,
> Amir.
>