[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4B470606.7090409@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 08 Jan 2010 11:16:38 +0100
From: Jiri Slaby <jirislaby@...il.com>
To: netdev@...r.kernel.org
CC: "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, fubar@...ibm.com,
bonding-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: bonding: potential null dereference?
Hi,
I'm looking at Stanse errors and it detected a suspected behaviour in
bonding. In bond_slave_netdev_event, bond_dev is passed down to
netdev_priv, but due to 'if (bond_dev)' test later, it deduced it can be
also NULL.
I can see, that passing NULL to netdev_priv is OK nowadays, as it just
returns NULL + some offset. But what if this changes in the future?
I would bake a patch, but I don't know if bond_dev may be NULL at all
(i.e. superfluous test) or may not (wrong netdev_priv(bond_dev)).
static int (unsigned long event,
struct net_device *slave_dev)
{
struct net_device *bond_dev = slave_dev->master;
struct bonding *bond = netdev_priv(bond_dev);
switch (event) {
case NETDEV_UNREGISTER:
if (bond_dev) {
if (bond->setup_by_slave)
bond_release_and_destroy(bond_dev,
slave_dev);
else
bond_release(bond_dev, slave_dev);
}
break;
--
js
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists