Skip to contentSkip to conversation

btrfs: Fix returned errno codes

PATCH In review Luis de Bethencourt 2 participants 4 messages Sep 24, 2015 – Sep 25, 2015 Btrfs file system

lore
Share & tools
lore

Luis de Bethencourt

author
#0 lore raw

v2 cover btrfs: Fix returned errno codes

Hi,

These two patches fix instances where -1 is used to specify a buffer allocation fail, instead of using -ENOMEM.

Patch 1/2 is already reviewed by David Sterba.

Luis de Bethencourt (2):
btrfs: check-integrity: Fix returned errno codes
btrfs: reada: Fix returned errno code

 fs/btrfs/check-integrity.c | 4 ++--
 fs/btrfs/reada.c           | 8 +++++---
 2 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
Signature · 1 line
2.5.1
author
#1 lore raw

PATCH v2 1/2 btrfs: check-integrity: Fix returned errno codes

check-integrity is using -1 instead of the -ENOMEM defined macro to specify that a buffer allocation failed. Since the error number is propagated, the caller will get a -EPERM which is the wrong error condition.

Also, the smatch tool complains with the following warnings:
btrfsic_process_superblock() warn: returning -1 instead of -ENOMEM is sloppy btrfsic_read_block() warn: returning -1 instead of -ENOMEM is sloppy

Signed-off-by Luis de Bethencourt <[email protected]>
Reviewed-by David Sterba <[email protected]>
---
 fs/btrfs/check-integrity.c | 4 ++--
 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
fs/btrfs/check-integrity.c +2 -2
index 541fbfa..9cacd06 100644
@@ -667,7 +667,7 @@ static int btrfsic_process_superblock(struct btrfsic_state *state,
 	selected_super = kzalloc(sizeof(*selected_super), GFP_NOFS);
 	if (NULL == selected_super) {
 		printk(KERN_INFO "btrfsic: error, kmalloc failed!\n");
-		return -1;
+		return -ENOMEM;
 	}
 
 	list_for_each_entry(device, dev_head, dev_list) {

@@ -1660,7 +1660,7 @@ static int btrfsic_read_block(struct btrfsic_state *state,
 					  sizeof(*block_ctx->pagev)) *
 					 num_pages, GFP_NOFS);
 	if (!block_ctx->mem_to_free)
-		return -1;
+		return -ENOMEM;
 	block_ctx->datav = block_ctx->mem_to_free;
 	block_ctx->pagev = (struct page **)(block_ctx->datav + num_pages);
 	for (i = 0; i < num_pages; i++) {
Signature · 1 line
2.5.1
author
#2 lore raw

PATCH v2 2/2 btrfs: reada: Fix returned errno code

In reply to Luis de Bethencourt

reada is using -1 instead of the -ENOMEM defined macro to specify that a buffer allocation failed. Since the error number is propagated, the caller will get a -EPERM which is the wrong error condition.

Also, updating the caller to return the exact value from reada_add_block.

Smatch tool warning:
reada_add_block() warn: returning -1 instead of -ENOMEM is sloppy

Signed-off-by Luis de Bethencourt <[email protected]>
---
 fs/btrfs/reada.c | 8 +++++---
 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
fs/btrfs/reada.c +5 -3
index 4645cd1..619f929 100644
@@ -569,7 +569,7 @@ static int reada_add_block(struct reada_control *rc, u64 logical,
 	rec = kzalloc(sizeof(*rec), GFP_NOFS);
 	if (!rec) {
 		reada_extent_put(root->fs_info, re);
-		return -1;
+		return -ENOMEM;
 	}
 
 	rec->rc = rc;

@@ -918,6 +918,7 @@ struct reada_control *btrfs_reada_add(struct btrfs_root *root,
 	u64 start;
 	u64 generation;
 	int level;
+	int ret;
 	struct extent_buffer *node;
 	static struct btrfs_key max_key = {
 		.objectid = (u64)-1,

@@ -943,9 +944,10 @@ struct reada_control *btrfs_reada_add(struct btrfs_root *root,
 	generation = btrfs_header_generation(node);
 	free_extent_buffer(node);
 
-	if (reada_add_block(rc, start, &max_key, level, generation)) {
+	ret = reada_add_block(rc, start, &max_key, level, generation);
+	if (ret) {
 		kfree(rc);
-		return ERR_PTR(-ENOMEM);
+		return ERR_PTR(ret);
 	}
 
 	reada_start_machine(root->fs_info);
Signature · 1 line
2.5.1
Reviewed-by on v2 2/2
#3 lore raw

Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] btrfs: reada: Fix returned errno code

Quoted 11 lines · Luis de Bethencourt

reada is using -1 instead of the -ENOMEM defined macro to specify that a buffer allocation failed. Since the error number is propagated, the caller will get a -EPERM which is the wrong error condition.

Also, updating the caller to return the exact value from reada_add_block.

Smatch tool warning:
reada_add_block() warn: returning -1 instead of -ENOMEM is sloppy

Signed-off-by Luis de Bethencourt <[email protected]>
Reviewed-by David Sterba <[email protected]>