Le Fri, Mar 11, 2016 à 11:01 PM, Andrei Borzenkov <arvidj...@gmail.com> a écrit :
> 12.03.2016 01:00, Vladimir 'phcoder' Serbinenko пишет: > > On Friday, March 11, 2016, Josef Bacik <jba...@fb.com> wrote: > > > >> On 03/11/2016 02:34 PM, Vladimir 'phcoder' Serbinenko wrote: > >> > >>> > >>> > >>> Le ven. 11 mars 2016 19:13, Josef Bacik <jba...@fb.com > >>> <mailto:jba...@fb.com>> a écrit : > >>> > >>> On 03/11/2016 12:23 PM, Vladimir 'phcoder' Serbinenko wrote: > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > On Friday, March 11, 2016, Josef Bacik <jba...@fb.com > >>> <mailto:jba...@fb.com> > >>> > <mailto:jba...@fb.com <mailto:jba...@fb.com>>> wrote: > >>> > > >>> > If you try to load an initrd from http and it errors out we > >>> will > >>> > free the initrd > >>> > context but continue on because net_tcp_socket_close() will > >>> reset > >>> > the grub_errno > >>> > as will grub_initrd_close(). So we'll lose the errno and > >>> return > >>> > GRUB_ERR_NONE > >>> > instead of the original error. Add push/pulls to the > >>> appropriate > >>> > places so we > >>> > don't lose our errno. Thanks, > >>> > > >>> > Close functions shouldn't do this. Can you fix them instead? > Also > >>> please > >>> > add [2.02] to the subjectwhen appropriate, like in this case. > >>> > > >>> > >>> So do we not want close functions to do grub_error() at all? Seems > >>> like > >>> there may be some cases where we want to know there was an error > >>> closing > >>> a tcp socket or the initrd? Maybe not, just want to make sure > before > >>> I > >>> go make these two functions void. > >>> > >>> How can a failure occur in close routines? What can we do with the > >>> failure anyway? > >>> > > It is not about problems in close routines themselves, but we call them > to cleanup and lose errors that caused us to clean up. > > Yes, and if we don't put the logic to preserve errors in the close functions, we'll have to repeat this code at every call site which is error-prone and is code duplication. > >> > >> So sending the FIN packet for the tcp close was failing for example. I > >> don't think we can do anything really, I just don't like doing a patch 4 > >> times, so I want to make sure turning these close functions into void's > is > >> ok. Thanks, > >> > >> I prefer void close functions. Give it another day and if nobody > objects > > by then, then it's fine for everyone. > > > > May be I miss something obvious here - which close functions do you > mean? grub_net_tcp_close() is void already, like is grub_initrd_close. > So what exactly do you suggest to change? > I suggest to make them preserve grub_errno properly. > > The problem is that we lose error indication from upper level protocols > or preceding code every time we close file or socket due to previous error. > Yes, and we need to change close routines, to preserve grub_errno > > _______________________________________________ > Grub-devel mailing list > Grub-devel@gnu.org > https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/grub-devel >
_______________________________________________ Grub-devel mailing list Grub-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/grub-devel
