From: Jiri Pirko <j...@resnulli.us>
Date: Sat, 27 Jul 2019 11:44:57 +0200
> + if ((netns_pid_attr && (netns_fd_attr || netns_id_attr)) ||
> + (netns_fd_attr && (netns_pid_attr || netns_id_attr)) ||
> + (netns_id_attr && (netns_pid_attr || netns_fd_attr))) {
> + NL_SET_ERR_MSG(info->extack, "multiple netns identifying
> attributes specified");
> + return ERR_PTR(-EINVAL);
> + }
How about:
if (!!a + !!b + !!c > 1) {
...
> +
> + if (netns_pid_attr) {
> + net = get_net_ns_by_pid(nla_get_u32(netns_pid_attr));
> + } else if (netns_fd_attr) {
> + net = get_net_ns_by_fd(nla_get_u32(netns_fd_attr));
> + } else if (netns_id_attr) {
> + net = get_net_ns_by_id(sock_net(skb->sk),
> + nla_get_u32(netns_id_attr));
> + if (!net)
> + net = ERR_PTR(-EINVAL);
> + }
> + if (IS_ERR(net)) {
I think this is going to be one of those cases where a compiler won't be able
to prove that 'net' is guaranteed to be initialized at this spot. Please
rearrange this code somehow so that is unlikely to happen.
Thanks.
