Re: [PATCH 2/4] Return better error codes from vfat_valid_longname()

From: Rene Scharfe
Date: Tue Nov 09 2004 - 13:39:40 EST


On Wed, Nov 10, 2004 at 02:35:00AM +0900, OGAWA Hirofumi wrote:
> Rene Scharfe <rene.scharfe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>
> > At least ENAMETOOLONG and ENOENT are properly defined error codes. :)
>
> Ah, yes. IIRC I already fixed the ENOENT case.
> We shouldn't need "len == 0" check, right?

Yes. I removed the check and rediffed the patch against the one I sent
a few minutes ago.

René



--- ./fs/vfat/namei.c.orig 2004-11-09 19:32:40.000000000 +0100
+++ ./fs/vfat/namei.c 2004-11-09 19:32:24.000000000 +0100
@@ -200,10 +200,10 @@ static inline int vfat_is_used_badchars(

static int vfat_valid_longname(const unsigned char *name, unsigned int len)
{
- if (len && name[len-1] == ' ')
- return 0;
+ if (name[len-1] == ' ')
+ return -EINVAL;
if (len >= 256)
- return 0;
+ return -ENAMETOOLONG;

/* MS-DOS "device special files" */
if (len == 3 || (len > 3 && name[3] == '.')) { /* basename == 3 */
@@ -211,18 +211,18 @@ static int vfat_valid_longname(const uns
!strnicmp(name, "con", 3) ||
!strnicmp(name, "nul", 3) ||
!strnicmp(name, "prn", 3))
- return 0;
+ return -EINVAL;
}
if (len == 4 || (len > 4 && name[4] == '.')) { /* basename == 4 */
/* "com1", "com2", ... */
if ('1' <= name[3] && name[3] <= '9') {
if (!strnicmp(name, "com", 3) ||
!strnicmp(name, "lpt", 3))
- return 0;
+ return -EINVAL;
}
}

- return 1;
+ return 0;
}

static int vfat_find_form(struct inode *dir, unsigned char *name)
@@ -625,8 +625,9 @@ static int vfat_build_slots(struct inode
loff_t offset;

*slots = 0;
- if (!vfat_valid_longname(name, len))
- return -EINVAL;
+ res = vfat_valid_longname(name, len);
+ if (res)
+ return res;

if(!(page = __get_free_page(GFP_KERNEL)))
return -ENOMEM;
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/