On Mon, Apr 4, 2022 at 11:24 PM Yuntao Wang ytcoode@gmail.com wrote:

There are some issues in parse_num_list():

First, the end variable is assigned twice when parsing_end is true, it is unnecessary.

Second, the function does not check that parsing_end is false after parsing argument. Thus, if the final part of the argument is something like '4-', parse_num_list() will discard it instead of returning -EINVAL.

Clean up parse_num_list() and fix these issues.

Before:

$ ./test_progs -n 2,4- #2 atomic_bounds:OK Summary: 1/0 PASSED, 0 SKIPPED, 0 FAILED

After:

$ ./test_progs -n 2,4- Failed to parse test numbers.

Signed-off-by: Yuntao Wang ytcoode@gmail.com

v1 -> v2: add more details to commit message

tools/testing/selftests/bpf/testing_helpers.c | 18 +++++++++--------- 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)

diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/testing_helpers.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/testing_helpers.c index 795b6798ccee..82f0e2d99c23 100644 --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/testing_helpers.c +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/testing_helpers.c @@ -20,16 +20,16 @@ int parse_num_list(const char *s, bool **num_set, int *num_set_len) if (errno) return -errno;

•           if (parsing_end)
  

•                   end = num;
  

•           else
  

•           if (!parsing_end) {
                    start = num;
  

•                   if (*next == '-') {
  

•                           s = next + 1;
  

•                           parsing_end = true;
  

•                           continue;
  

•                   }
  

•           }
  
  

•           if (!parsing_end && *next == '-') {
  

•                   s = next + 1;
  

•                   parsing_end = true;
  

•                   continue;
  

•           } else if (*next == ',') {
  

I think the new structure of the code is actually harder to follow and there is no need to change this code in the first place just to optimize away parsing_end assignmet.

•           if (*next == ',') {
                    parsing_end = false;
                    s = next + 1;
                    end = num;
  

@@ -60,7 +60,7 @@ int parse_num_list(const char *s, bool **num_set, int *num_set_len) set[i] = true; }

•   if (!set)
  

•   if (!set || parsing_end)
            return -EINVAL;
  
  

this is a real fix, please submit just and drop the first part of the patch

    *num_set = set;

-- 2.35.1