Vishal Verma wrote:
> Static analysis reports that the error unwinding path in monitor_event()
> overwrites 'rc' with the return from cxl_event_tracing_disable(). This
> masks the actual error code from either epoll_wait() or
> cxl_parse_events() which is the one that should be propagated.
>
> Print a spot error in case there's an error while disabling tracing, but
> otherwise retain the rc from the main body of the function.
>
> Fixes: 299f69f974a6 ("cxl/monitor: add a new monitor command for CXL trace
> events")
> Cc: Dave Jiang <[email protected]>
> Cc: Dan Williams <[email protected]>
> Signed-off-by: Vishal Verma <[email protected]>
> ---
> cxl/monitor.c | 3 ++-
> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/cxl/monitor.c b/cxl/monitor.c
> index 31e6f98..749f472 100644
> --- a/cxl/monitor.c
> +++ b/cxl/monitor.c
> @@ -130,7 +130,8 @@ static int monitor_event(struct cxl_ctx *ctx)
> }
>
> parse_err:
> - rc = cxl_event_tracing_disable(inst);
> + if (cxl_event_tracing_disable(inst) < 0)
> + err(&monitor, "failed to disable tracing\n");
Is this even worth printing? Perhaps just make
cxl_event_tracing_disable() return void?
Either way:
Reviewed-by: Ira Weiny <[email protected]>
> event_en_err:
> epoll_ctl_err:
> close(fd);
>
> --
> 2.39.1
>
>
