On Fri, Aug 18, 2017 at 09:21:34AM +0000, David Laight wrote:
> From: Phil Sutter
> > Sent: 17 August 2017 18:10
> > Signed-off-by: Phil Sutter <p...@nwl.cc>
> > ---
> > ip/iproute_lwtunnel.c | 2 +-
> > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/ip/iproute_lwtunnel.c b/ip/iproute_lwtunnel.c
> > index 398ab5e077ed8..1a3dc4d4c0ed9 100644
> > --- a/ip/iproute_lwtunnel.c
> > +++ b/ip/iproute_lwtunnel.c
> > @@ -643,7 +643,7 @@ static int lwt_parse_bpf(struct rtattr *rta, size_t len,
> > err = bpf_parse_common(bpf_type, &cfg, &bpf_cb_ops, &x);
> > if (err < 0) {
> > fprintf(stderr, "Failed to parse eBPF program: %s\n",
> > - strerror(err));
> > + strerror(-err));
>
> If we are in userspace I'd expect errno values to be +ve.
> Returning a -ve errno is very non-standard.
This is because bpf_parse() returns the number of instructions parsed or
a negative return code. We could change it to return instructions * -1
or a positive return code, but that's even more insane than calling
strerror(-err), isn't it?
Cheers, Phil
