Mon, Jul 29, 2019 at 07:52:16PM CEST, da...@davemloft.net wrote:
>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) {
> ...
I just copied the logic from the existing code. But sure :)
>
>> +
>> + 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.
It does not complain though. The function cannot be entered unless at
least one is. I'll check again.
>
>Thanks.
