netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next v4 03/12] selftests: ncdevmem: Unify error handling

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <5cfc763a-2d9a-4d87-8728-19db3f8e096d@redhat.com>
Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2024 11:37:07 +0200
From: Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>
To: Stanislav Fomichev <sdf@...ichev.me>, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Cc: davem@...emloft.net, edumazet@...gle.com, kuba@...nel.org,
 Mina Almasry <almasrymina@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v4 03/12] selftests: ncdevmem: Unify error
 handling



On 10/16/24 22:34, Stanislav Fomichev wrote:
> There is a bunch of places where error() calls look out of place.
> Use the same error(1, errno, ...) pattern everywhere.
> 
> Reviewed-by: Mina Almasry <almasrymina@...gle.com>
> Signed-off-by: Stanislav Fomichev <sdf@...ichev.me>
> ---
>  tools/testing/selftests/net/ncdevmem.c | 12 ++++++------
>  1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/net/ncdevmem.c b/tools/testing/selftests/net/ncdevmem.c
> index 9b3ca6398a9d..57437c34fdd2 100644
> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/net/ncdevmem.c
> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/net/ncdevmem.c
> @@ -340,32 +340,32 @@ int do_server(struct memory_buffer *mem)
>  
>  	ret = inet_pton(server_sin.sin_family, server_ip, &server_sin.sin_addr);
>  	if (socket < 0)
> -		error(79, 0, "%s: [FAIL, create socket]\n", TEST_PREFIX);
> +		error(1, 0, "%s: [FAIL, create socket]\n", TEST_PREFIX);

The above statements should probably be:

	if (ret < 0)
		error(1, errno, ...

>  
>  	socket_fd = socket(server_sin.sin_family, SOCK_STREAM, 0);
>  	if (socket < 0)

The above statements should probably be:

	if (socket_fd < 0)

AFAICS 'socket' here is the syscall function pointer. I found it strange
the compiler does not warn?!?

Thanks,

Paolo