On 2025/8/4 17:24, Dan Carpenter wrote:
On Mon, Aug 04, 2025 at 05:05:32PM +0800, Lance Yang wrote:
On 2025/8/4 16:21, Dan Carpenter wrote:
Hello Lance Yang,
Commit e89a68046687 ("netfilter: load nf_log_syslog on enabling
nf_conntrack_log_invalid") from May 26, 2025 (linux-next), leads to
the following Smatch static checker warning:
net/netfilter/nf_conntrack_standalone.c:575 nf_conntrack_log_invalid_sysctl()
warn: missing error code? 'ret'
Thanks for pointing this out!
net/netfilter/nf_conntrack_standalone.c
559 static int
560 nf_conntrack_log_invalid_sysctl(const struct ctl_table *table, int write,
561 void *buffer, size_t *lenp, loff_t *ppos)
562 {
563 int ret, i;
564
565 ret = proc_dou8vec_minmax(table, write, buffer, lenp, ppos);
566 if (ret < 0 || !write)
567 return ret;
568
569 if (*(u8 *)table->data == 0)
570 return ret;
return 0?
That's a good question. proc_dou8vec_minmax() returns 0 on a successful
write. So when a user writes '0' to disable the feature, ret is already 0.
Returning it is the correct behavior to signal success.
571
572 /* Load nf_log_syslog only if no logger is currently registered */
573 for (i = 0; i < NFPROTO_NUMPROTO; i++) {
574 if (nf_log_is_registered(i))
--> 575 return ret;
This feels like it should be return -EBUSY? Or potentially return 0.
We simply return ret (which is 0) to signal success, as no further action
(like loading the nf_log_syslog module) is needed.
576 }
577 request_module("%s", "nf_log_syslog");
578
579 return ret;
return 0.
It's 0 as well.
Emm... do you know a way to make the Smatch static checker happy?
Returning 0 would make the code so much more clear. Readers probably
Yep, I see your point ;)
assume that proc_dou8vec_minmax() returns positive values on success
IIUC, proc_dou8vec_minmax only returns 0 for success or a negative
error code, so there's no positive value case here ...
and that's why we are returning ret. I know that I had to check.
It should make the code clearer and also make the Smatch checker happy:
ret = proc_dou8vec_minmax(table, write, buffer, lenp, ppos);
- if (ret < 0 || !write)
+ if (ret != 0 || !write)
return ret;
By checking for "ret != 0", it becomes explicit that ret can only be
zero after that. wdyt?
Also, if you'd like, please feel free to send a patch for it ;p
Thanks,
Lance
