[PATCH v4 1/2] RDMA/hfi1: Fix error return code in parse_platform_config()

[PATCH v4 1/2] RDMA/hfi1: Fix error return code in parse_platform_config()

[Wang Yufen]

In the previous while loop, "ret" may be assigned zero, so the error
return code may be incorrectly set to 0 instead of -EINVAL.

Fixes: 97167e813415 ("staging/rdma/hfi1: Tune for unknown channel if configuration file is absent")
Signed-off-by: Wang Yufen <wangyufen@huawei.com>
---
 drivers/infiniband/hw/hfi1/firmware.c | 8 +++++++-
 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/drivers/infiniband/hw/hfi1/firmware.c b/drivers/infiniband/hw/hfi1/firmware.c
index 1d77514..9a08c1a 100644
--- a/drivers/infiniband/hw/hfi1/firmware.c
+++ b/drivers/infiniband/hw/hfi1/firmware.c
@@ -1730,7 +1730,7 @@ int parse_platform_config(struct hfi1_devdata *dd)
 	u32 *ptr = NULL;
 	u32 header1 = 0, header2 = 0, magic_num = 0, crc = 0, file_length = 0;
 	u32 record_idx = 0, table_type = 0, table_length_dwords = 0;
-	int ret = -EINVAL; /* assume failure */
+	int ret;
 
 	/*
 	 * For integrated devices that did not fall back to the default file,
@@ -1743,6 +1743,7 @@ int parse_platform_config(struct hfi1_devdata *dd)
 
 	if (!dd->platform_config.data) {
 		dd_dev_err(dd, "%s: Missing config file\n", __func__);
+		ret = -EINVAL;
 		goto bail;
 	}
 	ptr = (u32 *)dd->platform_config.data;
@@ -1751,6 +1752,7 @@ int parse_platform_config(struct hfi1_devdata *dd)
 	ptr++;
 	if (magic_num != PLATFORM_CONFIG_MAGIC_NUM) {
 		dd_dev_err(dd, "%s: Bad config file\n", __func__);
+		ret = -EINVAL;
 		goto bail;
 	}
 
@@ -1774,6 +1776,7 @@ int parse_platform_config(struct hfi1_devdata *dd)
 	if (file_length > dd->platform_config.size) {
 		dd_dev_info(dd, "%s:File claims to be larger than read size\n",
 			    __func__);
+		ret = -EINVAL;
 		goto bail;
 	} else if (file_length < dd->platform_config.size) {
 		dd_dev_info(dd,
@@ -1794,6 +1797,7 @@ int parse_platform_config(struct hfi1_devdata *dd)
 			dd_dev_err(dd, "%s: Failed validation at offset %ld\n",
 				   __func__, (ptr - (u32 *)
 					      dd->platform_config.data));
+			ret = -EINVAL;
 			goto bail;
 		}
 
@@ -1837,6 +1841,7 @@ int parse_platform_config(struct hfi1_devdata *dd)
 					   __func__, table_type,
 					   (ptr - (u32 *)
 					    dd->platform_config.data));
+				ret = -EINVAL;
 				goto bail; /* We don't trust this file now */
 			}
 			pcfgcache->config_tables[table_type].table = ptr;
@@ -1856,6 +1861,7 @@ int parse_platform_config(struct hfi1_devdata *dd)
 					   __func__, table_type,
 					   (ptr -
 					    (u32 *)dd->platform_config.data));
+				ret = -EINVAL;
 				goto bail; /* We don't trust this file now */
 			}
 			pcfgcache->config_tables[table_type].table_metadata =
-- 
1.8.3.1

[PATCH v4 2/2] RDMA/srp: Fix error return code in srp_parse_options()

[Wang Yufen]

In the previous while loop, "ret" may be assigned zero, , so the error
return code may be incorrectly set to 0 instead of -EINVAL. Alse
investigate each case separately as Andy suggessted.

Fixes: e711f968c49c ("IB/srp: replace custom implementation of hex2bin()")
Fixes: 2a174df0c602 ("IB/srp: Use kstrtoull() instead of simple_strtoull()")
Fixes: 19f313438c77 ("IB/srp: Add RDMA/CM support")
Signed-off-by: Wang Yufen <wangyufen@huawei.com>
---
 drivers/infiniband/ulp/srp/ib_srp.c | 71 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--------
 1 file changed, 56 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/infiniband/ulp/srp/ib_srp.c b/drivers/infiniband/ulp/srp/ib_srp.c
index 1075c2a..692c69a 100644
--- a/drivers/infiniband/ulp/srp/ib_srp.c
+++ b/drivers/infiniband/ulp/srp/ib_srp.c
@@ -3343,7 +3343,7 @@ static int srp_parse_options(struct net *net, const char *buf,
 	bool has_port;
 	int opt_mask = 0;
 	int token;
-	int ret = -EINVAL;
+	int ret;
 	int i;
 
 	options = kstrdup(buf, GFP_KERNEL);
@@ -3410,7 +3410,8 @@ static int srp_parse_options(struct net *net, const char *buf,
 			break;
 
 		case SRP_OPT_PKEY:
-			if (match_hex(args, &token)) {
+			ret = match_hex(args, &token);
+			if (ret) {
 				pr_warn("bad P_Key parameter '%s'\n", p);
 				goto out;
 			}
@@ -3470,7 +3471,8 @@ static int srp_parse_options(struct net *net, const char *buf,
 			break;
 
 		case SRP_OPT_MAX_SECT:
-			if (match_int(args, &token)) {
+			ret = match_int(args, &token);
+			if (ret) {
 				pr_warn("bad max sect parameter '%s'\n", p);
 				goto out;
 			}
@@ -3478,8 +3480,12 @@ static int srp_parse_options(struct net *net, const char *buf,
 			break;
 
 		case SRP_OPT_QUEUE_SIZE:
-			if (match_int(args, &token) || token < 1) {
+			ret = match_int(args, &token);
+			if (ret)
+				goto out;
+			if (token < 1) {
 				pr_warn("bad queue_size parameter '%s'\n", p);
+				ret = -EINVAL;
 				goto out;
 			}
 			target->scsi_host->can_queue = token;
@@ -3490,25 +3496,34 @@ static int srp_parse_options(struct net *net, const char *buf,
 			break;
 
 		case SRP_OPT_MAX_CMD_PER_LUN:
-			if (match_int(args, &token) || token < 1) {
+			ret = match_int(args, &token);
+			if (ret)
+				goto out;
+			if (token < 1) {
 				pr_warn("bad max cmd_per_lun parameter '%s'\n",
 					p);
+				ret = -EINVAL;
 				goto out;
 			}
 			target->scsi_host->cmd_per_lun = token;
 			break;
 
 		case SRP_OPT_TARGET_CAN_QUEUE:
-			if (match_int(args, &token) || token < 1) {
+			ret = match_int(args, &token);
+			if (ret)
+				goto out;
+			if (token < 1) {
 				pr_warn("bad max target_can_queue parameter '%s'\n",
 					p);
+				ret = -EINVAL;
 				goto out;
 			}
 			target->target_can_queue = token;
 			break;
 
 		case SRP_OPT_IO_CLASS:
-			if (match_hex(args, &token)) {
+			ret = match_hex(args, &token);
+			if (ret) {
 				pr_warn("bad IO class parameter '%s'\n", p);
 				goto out;
 			}
@@ -3517,6 +3532,7 @@ static int srp_parse_options(struct net *net, const char *buf,
 				pr_warn("unknown IO class parameter value %x specified (use %x or %x).\n",
 					token, SRP_REV10_IB_IO_CLASS,
 					SRP_REV16A_IB_IO_CLASS);
+				ret = -EINVAL;
 				goto out;
 			}
 			target->io_class = token;
@@ -3539,16 +3555,21 @@ static int srp_parse_options(struct net *net, const char *buf,
 			break;
 
 		case SRP_OPT_CMD_SG_ENTRIES:
-			if (match_int(args, &token) || token < 1 || token > 255) {
+			ret = match_int(args, &token);
+			if (ret)
+				goto out;
+			if (token < 1 || token > 255) {
 				pr_warn("bad max cmd_sg_entries parameter '%s'\n",
 					p);
+				ret = -EINVAL;
 				goto out;
 			}
 			target->cmd_sg_cnt = token;
 			break;
 
 		case SRP_OPT_ALLOW_EXT_SG:
-			if (match_int(args, &token)) {
+			ret = match_int(args, &token);
+			if (ret) {
 				pr_warn("bad allow_ext_sg parameter '%s'\n", p);
 				goto out;
 			}
@@ -3556,43 +3577,62 @@ static int srp_parse_options(struct net *net, const char *buf,
 			break;
 
 		case SRP_OPT_SG_TABLESIZE:
-			if (match_int(args, &token) || token < 1 ||
-					token > SG_MAX_SEGMENTS) {
+			ret = match_int(args, &token);
+			if (ret)
+				goto out;
+			if (token < 1 || token > SG_MAX_SEGMENTS) {
 				pr_warn("bad max sg_tablesize parameter '%s'\n",
 					p);
+				ret = -EINVAL;
 				goto out;
 			}
 			target->sg_tablesize = token;
 			break;
 
 		case SRP_OPT_COMP_VECTOR:
-			if (match_int(args, &token) || token < 0) {
+			ret = match_int(args, &token);
+			if (ret)
+				goto out;
+			if (token < 0) {
 				pr_warn("bad comp_vector parameter '%s'\n", p);
+				ret = -EINVAL;
 				goto out;
 			}
 			target->comp_vector = token;
 			break;
 
 		case SRP_OPT_TL_RETRY_COUNT:
-			if (match_int(args, &token) || token < 2 || token > 7) {
+			ret = match_int(args, &token);
+			if (ret)
+				goto out;
+			if (token < 2 || token > 7) {
 				pr_warn("bad tl_retry_count parameter '%s' (must be a number between 2 and 7)\n",
 					p);
+				ret = -EINVAL;
 				goto out;
 			}
 			target->tl_retry_count = token;
 			break;
 
 		case SRP_OPT_MAX_IT_IU_SIZE:
-			if (match_int(args, &token) || token < 0) {
+			ret = match_int(args, &token);
+			if (ret)
+				goto out;
+			if (token < 0) {
 				pr_warn("bad maximum initiator to target IU size '%s'\n", p);
+				ret = -EINVAL;
 				goto out;
 			}
 			target->max_it_iu_size = token;
 			break;
 
 		case SRP_OPT_CH_COUNT:
-			if (match_int(args, &token) || token < 1) {
+			ret = match_int(args, &token);
+			if (ret)
+				goto out;
+			if (token < 1) {
 				pr_warn("bad channel count %s\n", p);
+				ret = -EINVAL;
 				goto out;
 			}
 			target->ch_count = token;
@@ -3601,6 +3641,7 @@ static int srp_parse_options(struct net *net, const char *buf,
 		default:
 			pr_warn("unknown parameter or missing value '%s' in target creation request\n",
 				p);
+			ret = -EINVAL;
 			goto out;
 		}
 	}
-- 
1.8.3.1

Re: [PATCH v4 2/2] RDMA/srp: Fix error return code in srp_parse_options()

[Bart Van Assche]

On 11/28/22 18:04, Wang Yufen wrote:
> In the previous while loop, "ret" may be assigned zero, , so the error

The word "iteration" is missing from the above sentence. Additionally, 
there is a double comma.

> return code may be incorrectly set to 0 instead of -EINVAL. Alse

Alse -> Also

>   		case SRP_OPT_QUEUE_SIZE:
> -			if (match_int(args, &token) || token < 1) {
> +			ret = match_int(args, &token);
> +			if (ret)
> +				goto out;
> +			if (token < 1) {
>   				pr_warn("bad queue_size parameter '%s'\n", p);
> +				ret = -EINVAL;
>   				goto out;
>   			}
>   			target->scsi_host->can_queue = token;

Why only to report "bad queue_size parameter" if ret == 0 && token < 1 
but not if ret < 0? This is a behavior change that has not been 
explained in the patch description.

> @@ -3490,25 +3496,34 @@ static int srp_parse_options(struct net *net, const char *buf,
>   			break;
>   
>   		case SRP_OPT_MAX_CMD_PER_LUN:
> -			if (match_int(args, &token) || token < 1) {
> +			ret = match_int(args, &token);
> +			if (ret)
> +				goto out;
> +			if (token < 1) {
>   				pr_warn("bad max cmd_per_lun parameter '%s'\n",
>   					p);
> +				ret = -EINVAL;
>   				goto out;
>   			}
>   			target->scsi_host->cmd_per_lun = token;
>   			break;

Same comment here and for many other changes below.

Thanks,

Bart.

Re: [PATCH v4 2/2] RDMA/srp: Fix error return code in srp_parse_options()

[wangyufen]

I'm so sorry for the poor patch description. Is the following 
description OK?

In the previous iteration of the while loop, "ret" may have been 
assigned a value of 0, so the error return code -EINVAL may have been 
incorrectly set to 0.
Also, investigate each case separately as Andy suggessted. If the help 
function match_int() fails, the error code is returned, which is 
different from the warning information printed before. If the parsing 
result token is incorrect, "-EINVAL" is returned and the original 
warning information is printed.


Thanks.

在 2022/11/30 2:43, Bart Van Assche 写道:
> On 11/28/22 18:04, Wang Yufen wrote:
>> In the previous while loop, "ret" may be assigned zero, , so the error
> 
> The word "iteration" is missing from the above sentence. Additionally, 
> there is a double comma.
> 
>> return code may be incorrectly set to 0 instead of -EINVAL. Alse
> 
> Alse -> Also
> 
>>           case SRP_OPT_QUEUE_SIZE:
>> -            if (match_int(args, &token) || token < 1) {
>> +            ret = match_int(args, &token);
>> +            if (ret)
>> +                goto out;
>> +            if (token < 1) {
>>                   pr_warn("bad queue_size parameter '%s'\n", p);
>> +                ret = -EINVAL;
>>                   goto out;
>>               }
>>               target->scsi_host->can_queue = token;
> 
> Why only to report "bad queue_size parameter" if ret == 0 && token < 1 
> but not if ret < 0? This is a behavior change that has not been 
> explained in the patch description.
> 
>> @@ -3490,25 +3496,34 @@ static int srp_parse_options(struct net *net, 
>> const char *buf,
>>               break;
>>           case SRP_OPT_MAX_CMD_PER_LUN:
>> -            if (match_int(args, &token) || token < 1) {
>> +            ret = match_int(args, &token);
>> +            if (ret)
>> +                goto out;
>> +            if (token < 1) {
>>                   pr_warn("bad max cmd_per_lun parameter '%s'\n",
>>                       p);
>> +                ret = -EINVAL;
>>                   goto out;
>>               }
>>               target->scsi_host->cmd_per_lun = token;
>>               break;
> 
> Same comment here and for many other changes below.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Bart.
> 
> 

Re: [PATCH v4 2/2] RDMA/srp: Fix error return code in srp_parse_options()

[Bart Van Assche]

On 11/29/22 19:31, wangyufen wrote:
> I'm so sorry for the poor patch description. Is the following 
> description OK?
> 
> In the previous iteration of the while loop, "ret" may have been 
> assigned a value of 0, so the error return code -EINVAL may have been 
> incorrectly set to 0.
> Also, investigate each case separately as Andy suggessted. If the help 
> function match_int() fails, the error code is returned, which is 
> different from the warning information printed before. If the parsing 
> result token is incorrect, "-EINVAL" is returned and the original 
> warning information is printed.

Please reply below instead of above. See also 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style.

Regarding your question: not logging an error message if user input is 
rejected is unfriendly to the user. I think it's better to keep the 
behavior of reporting an error if a match* function fails instead of 
reporting in the patch description that the behavior has changed.

Thanks,

Bart.

Re: [PATCH v4 2/2] RDMA/srp: Fix error return code in srp_parse_options()

[wangyufen]

在 2022/12/1 2:00, Bart Van Assche 写道:
> On 11/29/22 19:31, wangyufen wrote:
>> I'm so sorry for the poor patch description. Is the following 
>> description OK?
>>
>> In the previous iteration of the while loop, "ret" may have been 
>> assigned a value of 0, so the error return code -EINVAL may have been 
>> incorrectly set to 0.
>> Also, investigate each case separately as Andy suggessted. If the help 
>> function match_int() fails, the error code is returned, which is 
>> different from the warning information printed before. If the parsing 
>> result token is incorrect, "-EINVAL" is returned and the original 
>> warning information is printed.
> 
> Please reply below instead of above. See also 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style.
> 

Thanks, that's helpful.

> Regarding your question: not logging an error message if user input is 
> rejected is unfriendly to the user. I think it's better to keep the 
> behavior of reporting an error if a match* function fails instead of 
> reporting in the patch description that the behavior has changed.
> 

> Thanks,
> 
> Bart.
> 
> 

Re: [PATCH v4 2/2] RDMA/srp: Fix error return code in srp_parse_options()

[wangyufen]

在 2022/12/1 2:00, Bart Van Assche 写道:
> On 11/29/22 19:31, wangyufen wrote:
>> I'm so sorry for the poor patch description. Is the following 
>> description OK?
>>
>> In the previous iteration of the while loop, "ret" may have been 
>> assigned a value of 0, so the error return code -EINVAL may have been 
>> incorrectly set to 0.
>> Also, investigate each case separately as Andy suggessted. If the help 
>> function match_int() fails, the error code is returned, which is 
>> different from the warning information printed before. If the parsing 
>> result token is incorrect, "-EINVAL" is returned and the original 
>> warning information is printed.
> 
> Please reply below instead of above. See also 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style.
> 
> Regarding your question: not logging an error message if user input is 
> rejected is unfriendly to the user. I think it's better to keep the 
> behavior of reporting an error if a match* function fails instead of 
> reporting in the patch description that the behavior has changed.
> 

So the following modification is better?

                 case SRP_OPT_CMD_SG_ENTRIES:
-                       if (match_int(args, &token) || token < 1 || 
token > 255) {
+                       ret = match_int(args, &token);
+                       if (ret) {
+                               pr_warn("bad max cmd_sg_entries 
parameter '%s'\n",
+                                       p);
+                               goto out;
+                       }
+                       if (token < 1 || token > 255) {
                                 pr_warn("bad max cmd_sg_entries 
parameter '%s'\n",
                                         p);
+                               ret = -EINVAL;
                                 goto out;
                         }
                         target->cmd_sg_cnt = token;
                         break;


Or the following is better?

                         if (match_int(args, &token) || token < 1 || 
token > 255) {
                                 pr_warn("bad max cmd_sg_entries 
parameter '%s'\n",
                                         p);
+                               ret = -EINVAL;
                                 goto out;
                         }
                         target->cmd_sg_cnt = token;
                         break;


> Thanks,
> 
> Bart.
> 
> 

Re: [PATCH v4 2/2] RDMA/srp: Fix error return code in srp_parse_options()

[Andy Shevchenko]

On Thu, Dec 01, 2022 at 09:49:51AM +0800, wangyufen wrote:
> 在 2022/12/1 2:00, Bart Van Assche 写道:
> > On 11/29/22 19:31, wangyufen wrote:

...

>                 case SRP_OPT_CMD_SG_ENTRIES:
> -                       if (match_int(args, &token) || token < 1 || token >
> 255) {
> +                       ret = match_int(args, &token);
> +                       if (ret) {
> +                               pr_warn("bad max cmd_sg_entries parameter
> '%s'\n",

It's misleading message here. The problem is that parser failed by some reason.
Otherwise this variant seems good one.

> +                                       p);
> +                               goto out;
> +                       }
> +                       if (token < 1 || token > 255) {
>                                 pr_warn("bad max cmd_sg_entries parameter
> '%s'\n",
>                                         p);
> +                               ret = -EINVAL;
>                                 goto out;
>                         }
>                         target->cmd_sg_cnt = token;
>                         break;

...

> Or the following is better?

Why do you want to shadow actual error code?

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko

Re: [PATCH v4 1/2] RDMA/hfi1: Fix error return code in parse_platform_config()

[Leon Romanovsky]

On Tue, Nov 29, 2022 at 10:04:18AM +0800, Wang Yufen wrote:
> In the previous while loop, "ret" may be assigned zero, so the error
> return code may be incorrectly set to 0 instead of -EINVAL.
> 
> Fixes: 97167e813415 ("staging/rdma/hfi1: Tune for unknown channel if configuration file is absent")
> Signed-off-by: Wang Yufen <wangyufen@huawei.com>
> ---
>  drivers/infiniband/hw/hfi1/firmware.c | 8 +++++++-
>  1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 

Thanks, LGTM.

@Dennis?