linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/4] net: Adjustment parameters in rtnl

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <5299846.uZDWVASI8p@basile.remlab.net>
Date:   Mon, 19 Jul 2021 17:36:06 +0300
From:   Rémi Denis-Courmont <remi@...lab.net>
To:     courmisch@...il.com, Yajun Deng <yajun.deng@...ux.dev>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/4] net: Adjustment parameters in rtnl_notify()

 Hi,

Le maanantaina 19. heinäkuuta 2021, 15.25.06 EEST Yajun Deng a écrit :
> The fifth parameter alread modify from 'struct nlmsghdr *nlh' to
> 'int report', just adjustment them.

I can't see that anywhere in the patch.

> Add the case the nlh variable is NULL in nlmsg_report().
> 
> Signed-off-by: Yajun Deng <yajun.deng@...ux.dev>

> diff --git a/net/phonet/pn_netlink.c b/net/phonet/pn_netlink.c
> index 59aebe296890..03e04d0b8453 100644
> --- a/net/phonet/pn_netlink.c
> +++ b/net/phonet/pn_netlink.c
> @@ -38,7 +38,7 @@ void phonet_address_notify(int event, struct net_device
> *dev, u8 addr) goto errout;
>  	}
>  	rtnl_notify(skb, dev_net(dev), 0,
> -		    RTNLGRP_PHONET_IFADDR, NULL, GFP_KERNEL);
> +		    RTNLGRP_PHONET_IFADDR, 0, GFP_KERNEL);
>  	return;
>  errout:
>  	rtnl_set_sk_err(dev_net(dev), RTNLGRP_PHONET_IFADDR, err);
> @@ -204,7 +204,7 @@ void rtm_phonet_notify(int event, struct net_device
> *dev, u8 dst) goto errout;
>  	}
>  	rtnl_notify(skb, dev_net(dev), 0,
> -			  RTNLGRP_PHONET_ROUTE, NULL, GFP_KERNEL);
> +			  RTNLGRP_PHONET_ROUTE, 0, GFP_KERNEL);
>  	return;
>  errout:
>  	rtnl_set_sk_err(dev_net(dev), RTNLGRP_PHONET_ROUTE, err);

Sorry but I don't like to replace explicit NULL pointers with implicitly 
converted zeroes.

-- 
雷米‧德尼-库尔蒙
http://www.remlab.net/