[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <202101111204.971BDEC@keescook>
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 2021 12:04:54 -0800
From: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
To: Paul Cercueil <paul@...pouillou.net>
Cc: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>,
Will Drewry <wad@...omium.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
stable@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] seccomp: Add missing return in non-void function
On Mon, Jan 11, 2021 at 05:28:39PM +0000, Paul Cercueil wrote:
> We don't actually care about the value, since the kernel will panic
> before that; but a value should nonetheless be returned, otherwise the
> compiler will complain.
>
> Fixes: 8112c4f140fa ("seccomp: remove 2-phase API")
> Cc: stable@...r.kernel.org # 4.7+
> Signed-off-by: Paul Cercueil <paul@...pouillou.net>
Ah, yes, thanks. What was the build config where this actually got
exposed?
> ---
> kernel/seccomp.c | 2 ++
> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/kernel/seccomp.c b/kernel/seccomp.c
> index 952dc1c90229..63b40d12896b 100644
> --- a/kernel/seccomp.c
> +++ b/kernel/seccomp.c
> @@ -1284,6 +1284,8 @@ static int __seccomp_filter(int this_syscall, const struct seccomp_data *sd,
> const bool recheck_after_trace)
> {
> BUG();
> +
> + return -1;
> }
> #endif
>
> --
> 2.29.2
>
--
Kees Cook
Powered by blists - more mailing lists