Re: [p4tc-discussions] Re: [PATCH RFC v2 net-next 04/28] net/sched: act_api: add init_ops to struct tc_action_op

[Jamal Hadi Salim <jhs@mojatatu.com>]

On Mon, Jun 5, 2023 at 10:59 AM Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@linaro.org> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jun 05, 2023 at 10:01:44AM -0400, Jamal Hadi Salim wrote:
> > On Mon, Jun 5, 2023 at 7:39 AM Dan Carpenter via p4tc-discussions
> > <p4tc-discussions@netdevconf.info> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Mon, Jun 05, 2023 at 11:51:14AM +0200, Simon Horman wrote:
> > > > > @@ -1494,8 +1494,13 @@ struct tc_action *tcf_action_init_1(struct net *net, struct tcf_proto *tp,
> > > > >                     }
> > > > >             }
> > > > >
> > > > > -           err = a_o->init(net, tb[TCA_ACT_OPTIONS], est, &a, tp,
> > > > > -                           userflags.value | flags, extack);
> > > > > +           if (a_o->init)
> > > > > +                   err = a_o->init(net, tb[TCA_ACT_OPTIONS], est, &a, tp,
> > > > > +                                   userflags.value | flags, extack);
> > > > > +           else if (a_o->init_ops)
> > > > > +                   err = a_o->init_ops(net, tb[TCA_ACT_OPTIONS], est, &a,
> > > > > +                                       tp, a_o, userflags.value | flags,
> > > > > +                                       extack);
> > > >
> > > > By my reading the initialisation of a occurs here.
> > > > Which is now conditional.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Right.  Presumably the author knows that one (and only one) of the
> > > ->init or ->init_ops pointers is set.
> >
> > Yes, this is correct and the code above checks i.e
> >  -     if (!act->act || !act->dump || !act->init)
> >  +     if (!act->act || !act->dump || (!act->init && !act->init_ops))
> >                return -EINVAL;
> >
>
> Ah.  Right.
>
> > > This kind of relationship between
> > > two variables is something that Smatch tries to track inside a function
> > > but outside of functions, like here, then Smatch doesn't track it.
> > > I can't really think of a scalable way to track this.
> >
> > Could you have used the statement i referred to above as part of the state?
> >
>
> If the if statement were in the same function then Smatch would be able
> to parse this but that relationship information doesn't carry across the
> function boundary.  It's actually quite a bit more complicated than just
> the function boundary even...  I don't know if this is even possible but
> if it were then it would be like a 5-7 year time frame to make it work...

Understood. I guess this semantically is at least a layer above, so it
owuld be complex.

cheers,
jamal
> regards,
> dan carpenter
>
>