Shiju Jose wrote: > >-----Original Message----- > >From: Alison Schofield <alison.schofield@xxxxxxxxx> > >Sent: 28 May 2025 16:23 > >To: Shiju Jose <shiju.jose@xxxxxxxxxx>; Dan Carpenter > ><dan.carpenter@xxxxxxxxxx> > >Cc: Davidlohr Bueso <dave@xxxxxxxxxxxx>; Jonathan Cameron > ><jonathan.cameron@xxxxxxxxxx>; Dave Jiang <dave.jiang@xxxxxxxxx>; Vishal > >Verma <vishal.l.verma@xxxxxxxxx>; Ira Weiny <ira.weiny@xxxxxxxxx>; Dan > >Williams <dan.j.williams@xxxxxxxxx>; Li Ming <ming.li@xxxxxxxxxxxx>; Fan Ni > ><fan.ni@xxxxxxxxxxx>; linux-cxl@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux- > >kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; kernel-janitors@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > >Subject: Re: [PATCH next] cxl: fix return value in cxlctl_validate_set_features() > > > >On Wed, May 28, 2025 at 11:11:41AM +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote: > >> The cxlctl_validate_set_features() function is type bool. It's > >> supposed to return true for valid requests and false for invalid. > >> However, this error path returns ERR_PTR(-EINVAL) which is true when > >> it was intended to return false. > > > >Shiju - Can you trace this one through and add the impact statement? > >Wondering if this is going to fail gracefully, or badly, further down this path? > > Hi Alison, > > This is introduced when following fwctl specific code > move out of common function (use both in fwctl and edac path) > get_support_feature_info() to fwctl specific function > cxlctl_validae_set_feature(). > "if (rpc_in->op_size < sizeof(uuid_t)) > return ERR_PTR(-EINVAL);" > > This may have an impact on fwctl side if the above check pass. > I got a bit sidetracked by this conversation. It seems the TLDR is: This fix is not required. But should be fixed for long term correctness. With that interpretation. Reviewed-by: Ira Weiny <ira.weiny@xxxxxxxxx>
