[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20121207093107.GA2996@casper.infradead.org>
Date: Fri, 7 Dec 2012 09:31:07 +0000
From: Thomas Graf <tgraf@...g.ch>
To: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com>
Cc: Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@...tta.com>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
bridge@...ts.linux-foundation.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [patch] bridge: make buffer larger in br_setlink()
On 12/07/12 at 09:18am, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> __IFLA_BRPORT_MAX is one larger than IFLA_BRPORT_MAX. We pass
> IFLA_BRPORT_MAX to nla_parse_nested() so we need IFLA_BRPORT_MAX + 1
> elements. Also Smatch complains that we read past the end of the array
> when in br_set_port_flag() when it's called with IFLA_BRPORT_FAST_LEAVE.
>
> Signed-off-by: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com>
> ---
> Only needed in linux-next.
>
> diff --git a/net/bridge/br_netlink.c b/net/bridge/br_netlink.c
> index 850b7d1..cfc5cfe 100644
> --- a/net/bridge/br_netlink.c
> +++ b/net/bridge/br_netlink.c
> @@ -239,7 +239,7 @@ int br_setlink(struct net_device *dev, struct nlmsghdr *nlh)
> struct ifinfomsg *ifm;
> struct nlattr *protinfo;
> struct net_bridge_port *p;
> - struct nlattr *tb[IFLA_BRPORT_MAX];
> + struct nlattr *tb[__IFLA_BRPORT_MAX];
> int err;
>
> ifm = nlmsg_data(nlh);
I know it's nitpicking but could you use IFLA_BRPORT_MAX+1 for
consistency?
--
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
Powered by blists - more mailing lists