[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20140101.222323.688931116639418849.davem@davemloft.net>
Date: Wed, 01 Jan 2014 22:23:23 -0500 (EST)
From: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To: dborkman@...hat.com
Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org, acme@...stprotocols.net,
stephen@...workplumber.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net] net: llc: fix order of evaluation in
llc_conn_ac_inc_vr_by_1
From: Daniel Borkmann <dborkman@...hat.com>
Date: Wed, 1 Jan 2014 23:04:25 +0100
> Function llc_conn_ac_inc_vr_by_1() evaluates via macro
> PDU_GET_NEXT_Vr() into ...
>
> llc_sk(sk)->vR = ++llc_sk(sk)->vR & 0xffffffffffffff7f
>
> ... but the order in which the side effects take place is
> undefined because there is no intervening sequence point.
>
> As llc_sk(sk)->vR is written in llc_sk(sk)->vR (assignment
> left-hand side) and written in ++llc_sk(sk)->vR & 0xffffffffffffff7f
> this might possibly yield undefined behavior.
>
> The final value of llc_sk(sk)->vR is ambiguous, because,
> depending on the order of expression evaluation, the
> increment may occur before, after, or interleaved with
> the assignment. In C, evaluating such an expression yields
> undefined behavior.
>
> Since we're doing the increment via PDU_GET_NEXT_Vr() macro
> and the only place it is being used is from
> llc_conn_ac_inc_vr_by_1(), in order to increment vR by 1
> with a follow-up optimized modulo, rewrite the expression
> into ((vR + 1) & CONST) in order to fix this.
>
> Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann <dborkman@...hat.com>
Applied, thanks Daniel.
--
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