Markus Armbruster <arm...@redhat.com> wrote: > QIOChannelClass methods qio_channel_rdma_readv() and > qio_channel_rdma_writev() violate their method contract when > rdma->error_state is non-zero: > > 1. They return whatever is in rdma->error_state then. Only -1 will be > fine. -2 will be misinterpreted as "would block". Anything less > than -2 isn't defined in the contract. A positive value would be > misinterpreted as success, but I believe that's not actually > possible. > > 2. They neglect to set an error then. If something up the call stack > dereferences the error when failure is returned, it will crash. If > it ignores the return value and checks the error instead, it will > miss the error. > > Crap like this happens when return statements hide in macros, > especially when their uses are far away from the definition. > > I elected not to investigate how callers are impacted. > > Expand the two bad macro uses, so we can set an error and return -1. > The next commit will then get rid of the macro altogether. > > Signed-off-by: Markus Armbruster <arm...@redhat.com> > Reviewed-by: Fabiano Rosas <faro...@suse.de> > Reviewed-by: Li Zhijian <lizhij...@fujitsu.com>
Reviewed-by: Juan Quintela <quint...@redhat.com>
