netdev - Re: [PATCH] [rfc, netfilter-next] netfilter: nf

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: <18995804.9DSMHNUO14@wuerfel>
Date:   Fri, 28 Oct 2016 18:15:01 +0200
From:   Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
To:     Florian Westphal <fw@...len.de>
Cc:     Pablo Neira Ayuso <pablo@...filter.org>,
        Patrick McHardy <kaber@...sh.net>,
        Jozsef Kadlecsik <kadlec@...ckhole.kfki.hu>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Alexey Kuznetsov <kuznet@....inr.ac.ru>,
        James Morris <jmorris@...ei.org>,
        Hideaki YOSHIFUJI <yoshfuji@...ux-ipv6.org>,
        netfilter-devel@...r.kernel.org, coreteam@...filter.org,
        netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] [rfc, netfilter-next] netfilter: nf_tables: fib warnings

On Friday, October 28, 2016 5:50:31 PM CEST Florian Westphal wrote:
> Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de> wrote:
> > The newly added nft fib code produces two warnings:
> > 
> > net/ipv4/netfilter/nft_fib_ipv4.c: In function 'nft_fib4_eval':
> > net/ipv4/netfilter/nft_fib_ipv4.c:80:6: error: unused variable 'i' [-Werror=unused-variable]
> > net/ipv4/netfilter/nft_fib_ipv4.c: In function ‘nft_fib4_eval’:
> > net/ipv4/netfilter/nft_fib_ipv4.c:137:6: error: ‘oif’ may be used uninitialized in this function [-Werror=maybe-uninitialized]
> > 
> > The first one is obvious as the only user of that variable is
> > inside of an #ifdef, but the second one is a bit trickier.
> > It is clear that 'oif' is uninitialized here if neither
> > NFTA_FIB_F_OIF nor NFTA_FIB_F_IIF are set.
> > 
> > I have no idea how that should be handled, this patch just
> > returns without doing anything, which may or may not be
> > the right thing to do.
> 
> It should be initialized to NULL.

Ok, I had considered that, but wasn't sure if ->nh_dev could
ever be NULL, as that would then get dereferenced.

	Arnd