@@ -812,9 +812,9 @@ extern struct workqueue_struct *rxrpc_workqueue;
*/
int rxrpc_service_prealloc(struct rxrpc_sock *, gfp_t);
void rxrpc_discard_prealloc(struct rxrpc_sock *);
-bool rxrpc_new_incoming_call(struct rxrpc_local *, struct rxrpc_peer *,
- struct rxrpc_connection *, struct sockaddr_rxrpc *,
- struct sk_buff *);
+int rxrpc_new_incoming_call(struct rxrpc_local *, struct rxrpc_peer *,
+ struct rxrpc_connection *, struct sockaddr_rxrpc *,
+ struct sk_buff *);
void rxrpc_accept_incoming_calls(struct rxrpc_local *);
int rxrpc_user_charge_accept(struct rxrpc_sock *, unsigned long);
@@ -326,11 +326,11 @@ static struct rxrpc_call *rxrpc_alloc_incoming_call(struct rxrpc_sock *rx,
* If we want to report an error, we mark the skb with the packet type and
* abort code and return false.
*/
-bool rxrpc_new_incoming_call(struct rxrpc_local *local,
- struct rxrpc_peer *peer,
- struct rxrpc_connection *conn,
- struct sockaddr_rxrpc *peer_srx,
- struct sk_buff *skb)
+int rxrpc_new_incoming_call(struct rxrpc_local *local,
+ struct rxrpc_peer *peer,
+ struct rxrpc_connection *conn,
+ struct sockaddr_rxrpc *peer_srx,
+ struct sk_buff *skb)
{
const struct rxrpc_security *sec = NULL;
struct rxrpc_skb_priv *sp = rxrpc_skb(skb);
@@ -342,7 +342,7 @@ bool rxrpc_new_incoming_call(struct rxrpc_local *local,
/* Don't set up a call for anything other than the first DATA packet. */
if (sp->hdr.seq != 1 ||
sp->hdr.type != RXRPC_PACKET_TYPE_DATA)
- return true; /* Just discard */
+ return 0; /* Just discard */
rcu_read_lock();
@@ -413,7 +413,7 @@ bool rxrpc_new_incoming_call(struct rxrpc_local *local,
_leave(" = %p{%d}", call, call->debug_id);
rxrpc_input_call_event(call, skb);
rxrpc_put_call(call, rxrpc_call_put_input);
- return true;
+ return 0;
unsupported_service:
trace_rxrpc_abort(0, "INV", sp->hdr.cid, sp->hdr.callNumber, sp->hdr.seq,
@@ -425,10 +425,10 @@ bool rxrpc_new_incoming_call(struct rxrpc_local *local,
reject:
rcu_read_unlock();
_leave(" = f [%u]", skb->mark);
- return false;
+ return -EPROTO;
discard:
rcu_read_unlock();
- return true;
+ return 0;
}
/*
@@ -292,7 +292,7 @@ static int rxrpc_input_packet(struct rxrpc_local *local, struct sk_buff **_skb)
skb->mark = RXRPC_SKB_MARK_REJECT_ABORT;
reject_packet:
rxrpc_reject_packet(local, skb);
- return ret;
+ return 0;
}
/*
@@ -384,7 +384,7 @@ static int rxrpc_input_packet_on_conn(struct rxrpc_connection *conn,
if (rxrpc_to_client(sp))
goto bad_message;
if (rxrpc_new_incoming_call(conn->local, conn->peer, conn,
- peer_srx, skb))
+ peer_srx, skb) == 0)
return 0;
goto reject_packet;
}
Dan Carpenter sayeth[1]: The patch 5e6ef4f1017c: "rxrpc: Make the I/O thread take over the call and local processor work" from Jan 23, 2020, leads to the following Smatch static checker warning: net/rxrpc/io_thread.c:283 rxrpc_input_packet() warn: bool is not less than zero. Fix this (for now) by changing rxrpc_new_incoming_call() to return an int with 0 or error code rather than bool. Note that the actual return value of rxrpc_input_packet() is currently ignored. I have a separate patch to clean that up. Fixes: 5e6ef4f1017c ("rxrpc: Make the I/O thread take over the call and local processor work") Reported-by: Dan Carpenter <error27@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com> cc: Marc Dionne <marc.dionne@auristor.com> cc: linux-afs@lists.infradead.org Link: http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-afs/2022-December/006123.html [1] --- net/rxrpc/ar-internal.h | 6 +++--- net/rxrpc/call_accept.c | 18 +++++++++--------- net/rxrpc/io_thread.c | 4 ++-- 3 files changed, 14 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)