linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH][next] xfrm: Add error handling when nla_put

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <ZzcBPA+8nXwJdGBh@gauss3.secunet.de>
Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2024 09:07:24 +0100
From: Steffen Klassert <steffen.klassert@...unet.com>
To: Everest K.C. <everestkc@...restkc.com.np>
CC: Simon Horman <horms@...nel.org>, <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>,
	<davem@...emloft.net>, <edumazet@...gle.com>, <kuba@...nel.org>,
	<pabeni@...hat.com>, <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	<kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH][next] xfrm: Add error handling when nla_put_u32()
 returns an error

On Thu, Nov 14, 2024 at 12:27:28PM -0700, Everest K.C. wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 13, 2024 at 3:59 AM Simon Horman <horms@...nel.org> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Nov 12, 2024 at 04:36:06PM -0700, Everest K.C. wrote:
> > > Error handling is missing when call to nla_put_u32() fails.
> > > Handle the error when the call to nla_put_u32() returns an error.
> > >
> > > The error was reported by Coverity Scan.
> > > Report:
> > > CID 1601525: (#1 of 1): Unused value (UNUSED_VALUE)
> > > returned_value: Assigning value from nla_put_u32(skb, XFRMA_SA_PCPU, x->pcpu_num)
> > > to err here, but that stored value is overwritten before it can be used
> > >
> > > Fixes: 1ddf9916ac09 ("xfrm: Add support for per cpu xfrm state handling.")
> > > Signed-off-by: Everest K.C. <everestkc@...restkc.com.np>
> >
> > Reviewed-by: Simon Horman <horms@...nel.org>
> >
> > For future reference, I think the appropriate target for this tree
> > is ipsec-next rather than next.
> >
> >         Subject: [PATCH ipsec-next] xfrm: ...
> Should I send a patch to ipsec-next ?

No need to resend. This is now applied to ipsec-next,
thanks a lot!