netdev - Re: [PATCH] ipv6: xfrm6: fix dubious code

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: <20110523.163302.1123967560115611293.davem@davemloft.net>
Date:	Mon, 23 May 2011 16:33:02 -0400 (EDT)
From:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To:	bhutchings@...arflare.com
Cc:	eric.dumazet@...il.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ipv6: xfrm6: fix dubious code

From: Ben Hutchings <bhutchings@...arflare.com>
Date: Mon, 23 May 2011 08:36:00 -0700

> On Mon, 2011-05-23 at 10:42 +0200, Eric Dumazet wrote:
>> net/ipv6/xfrm6_tunnel.c: In function ‘xfrm6_tunnel_rcv’:
>> net/ipv6/xfrm6_tunnel.c:244:53: warning: the omitted middle operand
>> in ?: will always be ‘true’, suggest explicit middle operand
>> 
>> Signed-off-by: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
>> ---
>>  net/ipv6/xfrm6_tunnel.c |    2 +-
>>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>> 
>> diff --git a/net/ipv6/xfrm6_tunnel.c b/net/ipv6/xfrm6_tunnel.c
>> index a6770a0..fb9b0c3 100644
>> --- a/net/ipv6/xfrm6_tunnel.c
>> +++ b/net/ipv6/xfrm6_tunnel.c
>> @@ -241,7 +241,7 @@ static int xfrm6_tunnel_rcv(struct sk_buff *skb)
>>  	__be32 spi;
>>  
>>  	spi = xfrm6_tunnel_spi_lookup(net, (const xfrm_address_t *)&iph->saddr);
>> -	return xfrm6_rcv_spi(skb, IPPROTO_IPV6, spi) > 0 ? : 0;
>> +	return xfrm6_rcv_spi(skb, IPPROTO_IPV6, spi) > 0 ? 1 : 0;
>>  }
>>  
>>  static int xfrm6_tunnel_err(struct sk_buff *skb, struct inet6_skb_parm *opt,
> 
> I suspect that this was intended to return the result of xfrm6_rcv_spi()
> if > 0.

I also suspect this was the intent, but I'm not sure why it matters
at all.

The equivalent code implementing the same operations on the ipv4
side return xfrm4_rcv_spi()'s return value directly.

So we need to either decide that we can do the same thing here on the
ipv6 side, or document exactly why we can't.