netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next] ipvs: Avoid null-pointer deref in debug 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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <alpine.LFD.2.11.1410062201140.2258@ja.home.ssi.bg>
Date:	Mon, 6 Oct 2014 22:13:07 +0300 (EEST)
From:	Julian Anastasov <ja@....bg>
To:	Alex Gartrell <agartrell@...com>
cc:	horms@...ge.net.au, dan.carpenter@...cle.com,
	lvs-devel@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	kernel-team@...com
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next] ipvs: Avoid null-pointer deref in debug code


	Hello,

On Mon, 6 Oct 2014, Alex Gartrell wrote:

> Hey Julian,
> 
> I've sent an updated patch that does this but I have some questions about
> other stuff that I find mildly confusing.  Specifically I didn't realize until
> looking at the call sites that !dest || daddr = dest->addr.ip (but maybe I'm
> wrong?)
> 
> If that's the case, why do we have the following line in __ip_vs_get_out_rt?
> 
>                 daddr = dest->addr.ip;

	Extra line that is not needed...

> If that's /always/ true then we should add the following line or a comment to
> the same effect to clarify
> 
> 	BUG_ON(dest && dest->addr.ip != daddr);

	IMHO, BUG_ON is not needed.

> If that's not intended to always be true, then should the patch be the
> following?
> 
> 	...%pI4", dest ? &dest->addr.ip : &daddr);

	Using daddr is fine.

Regards

--
Julian Anastasov <ja@....bg>
--
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