[PATCH] cifs: Fix copy_to_iter return value check

[PATCH] cifs: Fix copy_to_iter return value check

[Fushuai Wang]

The return value of copy_to_iter() function will never be negative,
it is the number of bytes copied, or zero if nothing was copied.
Update the check to treat length <= 0 as an error, and return -1
in that case.

Fixes: d08089f649a0 ("cifs: Change the I/O paths to use an iterator rather than a page list")
Signed-off-by: Fushuai Wang <wangfushuai@baidu.com>
---
 fs/smb/client/smb2ops.c | 4 ++--
 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/fs/smb/client/smb2ops.c b/fs/smb/client/smb2ops.c
index 058050f744c0..2383a80b9ed1 100644
--- a/fs/smb/client/smb2ops.c
+++ b/fs/smb/client/smb2ops.c
@@ -4764,8 +4764,8 @@ handle_read_data(struct TCP_Server_Info *server, struct mid_q_entry *mid,
 		/* read response payload is in buf */
 		WARN_ONCE(buffer, "read data can be either in buf or in buffer");
 		length = copy_to_iter(buf + data_offset, data_len, &rdata->subreq.io_iter);
-		if (length < 0)
-			return length;
+		if (length <= 0)
+			return -1;
 		rdata->got_bytes = data_len;
 	} else {
 		/* read response payload cannot be in both buf and pages */
-- 
2.36.1

Re: [PATCH] cifs: Fix copy_to_iter return value check

[Markus Elfring]

> The return value of copy_to_iter() function will never be negative,
> it is the number of bytes copied, or zero if nothing was copied.
…

Why do you propose to preserve the comparison operator part “<” then?
Would the condition check “!length” be nicer at this place?

Regards,
Markus

Re: [PATCH] cifs: Fix copy_to_iter return value check

[Fushuai Wang]

[-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --]
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain; charset="y", Size: 353 bytes --]

>> The return value of copy_to_iter() function will never be negative,
>> it is the number of bytes copied, or zero if nothing was copied.
> …
> 
> Why do you propose to preserve the comparison operator part “<” then?
> Would the condition check “!length” be nicer at this place?

Yes, you are right. I will send a v2 shortly.

Regards,
Wang.