[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <e28441a3-7010-7535-5f70-af0f3df1158a@huawei.com>
Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2019 14:08:37 +0800
From: linmiaohe <linmiaohe@...wei.com>
To: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
CC: <kuznet@....inr.ac.ru>, <yoshfuji@...ux-ipv6.org>,
<netdev@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
<mingfangsen@...wei.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net] net: sit: fix UBSAN Undefined behaviour in check_6rd
On 2019/3/12 1:30, David Miller wrote:
> From: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
> Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2019 10:29:37 -0700 (PDT)
>
>> From: linmiaohe <linmiaohe@...wei.com>
>> Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2019 16:29:32 +0800
>>
>>> @@ -778,8 +778,9 @@ static bool check_6rd(struct ip_tunnel *tunnel, const struct in6_addr *v6dst,
>>> pbw0 = tunnel->ip6rd.prefixlen >> 5;
>>> pbi0 = tunnel->ip6rd.prefixlen & 0x1f;
>>>
>>> - d = (ntohl(v6dst->s6_addr32[pbw0]) << pbi0) >>
>>> - tunnel->ip6rd.relay_prefixlen;
>>> + d = tunnel->ip6rd.relay_prefixlen < 32 ?
>>> + (ntohl(v6dst->s6_addr32[pbw0]) << pbi0) >>
>>> + tunnel->ip6rd.relay_prefixlen : 0;
>>>
>>
>> I hate the fact that we have to guard against something which the rest
>> of the code makes sure NEVER EVER happens.
>>
>> Every assignment of ->relay_prefixlen is guarded by a check against 32.
>
> Sorry, I now understand, it can equal 32.
>
> I'll apply this, thank you.
>
> .
>
That's very nice of you. Thank you very much. I'am sorry for topping my reply in the previous email.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists