[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20110412081907.4f2e21fd@nehalam>
Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2011 08:19:07 -0700
From: Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@...tta.com>
To: tgraf@...hat.com
Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC] iproute2: Fix meta match u32 with 0xffffffff
On Tue, 12 Apr 2011 09:56:49 +0200
Thomas Graf <tgraf@...hat.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 2011-04-11 at 11:52 -0700, Stephen Hemminger wrote:
> > The value 0xffffffff is a valid mask and bstrtoul() would return
> > ULONG_MAX which was the error value. Resolve the problem by separating
> > return value and error indication.
> >
> > -unsigned long bstrtoul(const struct bstr *b)
> > +int bstrtoul(const struct bstr *b, unsigned long *lp)
> > {
> > char *inv = NULL;
> > - unsigned long l;
> > char buf[b->len+1];
> >
> > + if (b->len == 0)
> > + return -EINVAL;
> > +
> > memcpy(buf, b->data, b->len);
> > buf[b->len] = '\0';
> >
> > - l = strtoul(buf, &inv, 0);
> > - if (l == ULONG_MAX || inv == buf)
> > - return ULONG_MAX;
> > + *lp = strtoul(buf, &inv, 0);
> > + if (inv == buf)
> > + return -EINVAL;
> > +
> > + if (*lp == ULONG_MAX || errno == ERANGE)
> > + return -ERANGE;
> >
> > - return l;
> > + return 0;
> > }
>
> This is definitely much better but we still can't parse ULONG_MAX
> as string representative. Checking glibc docs, the only way to do it is
> to ignore the return value for error checking and look errno.
>
I think the error case is ret == ULONG_MAX && errno == ERANGE
If there is no error, then strtoul doesn't set errno.
--
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists