[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [PATCH] Catch under/overflow cases in cvtnum() and cvttime().

To: Arkadiusz MiÅkiewicz <arekm@xxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Catch under/overflow cases in cvtnum() and cvttime().
From: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sat, 12 Jul 2014 08:37:56 -0500
Cc: xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
Delivered-to: xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <201407120813.27317.arekm@xxxxxxxx>
References: <1405107244-14234-1-git-send-email-arekm@xxxxxxxx> <53C06FF3.2090600@xxxxxxxxxxx> <201407120813.27317.arekm@xxxxxxxx>
On 7/12/14, 1:13 AM, Arkadiusz MiÅkiewicz wrote:
> On Saturday 12 of July 2014, Eric Sandeen wrote:
>> On 7/11/14, 2:34 PM, Arkadiusz MiÅkiewicz wrote:
>>> cvtnum() and cvttime() silently ignore overflows. This leads to error
>>> conditions not being catched. Example:
>>> $ xfs_quota -x -c 'limit -u bsoft=987654321098765432199 \
>>>         bhard=987654321098765432199 999' /
>>> $
>>> Fixed version:
>>> $ xfs_quota -x -c 'limit -u bsoft=987654321098765432199 \
>>>         bhard=987654321098765432199 999' /
>>> xfs_quota: Error: could not parse size 987654321098765432199.
>>> xfs_quota: unrecognised argument bsoft=987654321098765432199
>> So, strtol(3) suggests setting errno to 0 before the call:
>>        Since  strtol()  can  legitimately  return  0,  LONG_MAX,  or 
>> LONG_MIN (LLONG_MAX or LLONG_MIN for strtoll()) on both success and
>> failure, the calling  program should set errno to 0 before the call, and
>> then deter- mine if an error occurred by checking  whether  errno  has  a 
>> non-zero value after the call.
>> Ditto for strtoul().
> Hm, my man pages 3.70 don't have such notes, strtol(3):
>        In locales other than the "C" locale, also other strings may be 
> accepted.  (For example, the thousands separator of the current locale may be 
> supported.)
>        BSD also has
>            quad_t
>            strtoq(const char *nptr, char **endptr, int base);
>        with completely analogous definition.  Depending on the wordsize of 
> the 
> current architecture, this may be equivalent to strtoll() or to strtol().
>> I guess that is just to ensure that there's not a leftover errno
>> when we make the call?  Worth doing, maybe?
> ERANGE is checked in few other places already in input.c and none initialize 
> errno before strtoul() call.

http://c-faq.com/misc/errno.html suggests it too:

> It's only necessary to detect errors with errno when a function does
> not have a unique, unambiguous, out-of-band error return (i.e.
> because all of its possible return values are valid; one example is
> atoi). In these cases (and in these cases only; check the
> documentation to be sure whether a function allows this), you can
> detect errors by setting errno to 0, calling the function, then
> testing errno.

I wonder why it was removed from the man page, it makes sense to me, but
maybe I'm missing something.


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>