[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <DS0PR11MB63733C7CA0B1497215B40F8DDC309@DS0PR11MB6373.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2022 02:16:14 +0000
From: "Wang, Wei W" <wei.w.wang@...el.com>
To: Vipin Sharma <vipinsh@...gle.com>,
"Christopherson,, Sean" <seanjc@...gle.com>,
"pbonzini@...hat.com" <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
"dmatlack@...gle.com" <dmatlack@...gle.com>
CC: "andrew.jones@...ux.dev" <andrew.jones@...ux.dev>,
"kvm@...r.kernel.org" <kvm@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: RE: [PATCH v6 3/5] KVM: selftests: Add atoi_paranoid() to catch
errors missed by atoi()
On Saturday, October 22, 2022 5:18 AM, Vipin Sharma wrote:
> +int atoi_paranoid(const char *num_str)
> +{
> + char *end_ptr;
> + long num;
> +
> + errno = 0;
> + num = strtol(num_str, &end_ptr, 10);
Why not use strtoull here?
Negative numbers will result in a huge "unsigned long long" number,
and this will be captured by your TEST_ASSERT(num >= INT_MIN) below.
Then we don't need patch 4, I think.
> + TEST_ASSERT(!errno, "strtol(\"%s\") failed", num_str);
> + TEST_ASSERT(num_str != end_ptr,
> + "strtol(\"%s\") didn't find a valid integer.\n", num_str);
> + TEST_ASSERT(*end_ptr == '\0',
> + "strtol(\"%s\") failed to parse trailing characters \"%s\".\n",
> + num_str, end_ptr);
> + TEST_ASSERT(num >= INT_MIN && num <= INT_MAX,
> + "%ld not in range of [%d, %d]", num, INT_MIN, INT_MAX);
> +
> + return num;
> +}
Powered by blists - more mailing lists