netdev - Re: [PATCH 6/17 net-2.6.26] [NETNS]: Default arp parameters lookup.

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: <47BA9E0B.6080209@fr.ibm.com>
Date:	Tue, 19 Feb 2008 10:14:51 +0100
From:	Daniel Lezcano <dlezcano@...ibm.com>
To:	"Denis V. Lunev" <den@...nvz.org>
CC:	davem@...emloft.net, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	containers@...ts.osdl.org, devel@...nvz.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 6/17 net-2.6.26] [NETNS]: Default arp parameters lookup.

Denis V. Lunev wrote:
> Default ARP parameters should be findable regardless of the context.
> Required to make inetdev_event working.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Denis V. Lunev <den@...nvz.org>
> ---
>  net/core/neighbour.c |    4 +---
>  1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/net/core/neighbour.c b/net/core/neighbour.c
> index c895ad4..45ed620 100644
> --- a/net/core/neighbour.c
> +++ b/net/core/neighbour.c
> @@ -1275,9 +1275,7 @@ static inline struct neigh_parms *lookup_neigh_params(struct neigh_table *tbl,
>  	struct neigh_parms *p;
> 
>  	for (p = &tbl->parms; p; p = p->next) {
> -		if (p->net != net)
> -			continue;
> -		if ((p->dev && p->dev->ifindex == ifindex) ||
> +		if ((p->dev && p->dev->ifindex == ifindex && p->net == net) ||
>  		    (!p->dev && !ifindex))
>  			return p;
>  	}

If the values are:
	p->dev == NULL
	ifindex == 0
	p->net != net

The parms should not be taken into account and the looping must 
continue. But with this modification it is not the case, if we specify 
parms ifindex == 0, the first parms with the dev field set to NULL will 
be taken belonging or not to the right net.

IMO the right test is:

if (p->net == net && ((p->dev && p->dev->ifindex == ifindex) || !p->dev 
&& !ifindex)))

I definitively prefer the first notation :)

 > -		if (p->net != net)
 > -			continue;

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html