From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:56663)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <famz@redhat.com>) id 1aJJBq-0000hY-8j
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 13 Jan 2016 06:02:11 -0500
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <famz@redhat.com>) id 1aJJBp-0007q0-Fg
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 13 Jan 2016 06:02:10 -0500
Date: Wed, 13 Jan 2016 19:02:00 +0800
From: Fam Zheng <famz@redhat.com>
Message-ID: <20160113110200.GF25517@ad.usersys.redhat.com>
References: <1452646350-11999-1-git-send-email-famz@redhat.com>
	<1452646350-11999-2-git-send-email-famz@redhat.com>
	<w51a8o9iy18.fsf@maestria.local.igalia.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <w51a8o9iy18.fsf@maestria.local.igalia.com>
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v2 1/2] blockdev: Error out on negative
 throttling option values
List-Id: <qemu-devel.nongnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/options/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:qemu-devel@nongnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=subscribe>
To: Alberto Garcia <berto@igalia.com>
Cc: Kevin Wolf <kwolf@redhat.com>, qemu-devel@nongnu.org, qemu-block@nongnu.org, Markus Armbruster <armbru@redhat.com>

On Wed, 01/13 11:17, Alberto Garcia wrote:
> On Wed 13 Jan 2016 01:52:29 AM CET, Fam Zheng wrote:
> 
> > The implicit casting from unsigned int to double changes negative values
> > into large positive numbers and accepts them.  We should instead print
> > an error.
> >
> > Check the number range so this case is catched and reported.
> 
> I still don't know why qemu_opt_get_number() convert silently negative
> numbers into positive ones, shouldn't it just fail with an "invalid
> parameter" error?

Because the parsing is done with strtoull(3) and unfortunately its man page
says "negative values are considered valid input and are silently converted to
the equivalent unsigned long int value."

> 
> > +#define THROTTLE_VALUE_MAX 1000000000000000L
> 
> This is larger than LONG_MAX in 32-bit systems, I don't know if you need
> to use LL instead.

I assume a compiler will handle that okay but yes it's safer to use LL.

Fam