RE: [PATCH next] cxl: fix return value in cxlctl_validate_set_features()

[Ira Weiny]

Shiju Jose wrote:
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: Alison Schofield <alison.schofield@xxxxxxxxx>
> >Sent: 28 May 2025 16:23
> >To: Shiju Jose <shiju.jose@xxxxxxxxxx>; Dan Carpenter
> ><dan.carpenter@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >Cc: Davidlohr Bueso <dave@xxxxxxxxxxxx>; Jonathan Cameron
> ><jonathan.cameron@xxxxxxxxxx>; Dave Jiang <dave.jiang@xxxxxxxxx>; Vishal
> >Verma <vishal.l.verma@xxxxxxxxx>; Ira Weiny <ira.weiny@xxxxxxxxx>; Dan
> >Williams <dan.j.williams@xxxxxxxxx>; Li Ming <ming.li@xxxxxxxxxxxx>; Fan Ni
> ><fan.ni@xxxxxxxxxxx>; linux-cxl@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux-
> >kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; kernel-janitors@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >Subject: Re: [PATCH next] cxl: fix return value in cxlctl_validate_set_features()
> >
> >On Wed, May 28, 2025 at 11:11:41AM +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> >> The cxlctl_validate_set_features() function is type bool.  It's
> >> supposed to return true for valid requests and false for invalid.
> >> However, this error path returns ERR_PTR(-EINVAL) which is true when
> >> it was intended to return false.
> >
> >Shiju - Can you trace this one through and add the impact statement?
> >Wondering if this is going to fail gracefully, or badly, further down this path?
> 
> Hi Alison,
> 
> This is introduced when following fwctl specific code
> move out of common  function (use both in fwctl and edac path)
> get_support_feature_info() to fwctl specific function
> cxlctl_validae_set_feature().
> "if (rpc_in->op_size < sizeof(uuid_t))
>       return ERR_PTR(-EINVAL);"
> 
> This may have an impact on fwctl side if the above check pass.
> 

I got a bit sidetracked by this conversation.

It seems the TLDR is:

This fix is not required.  But should be fixed for long term correctness.

With that interpretation.

Reviewed-by: Ira Weiny <ira.weiny@xxxxxxxxx>