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
| ||
|
Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2017 13:12:26 -0800 From: Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com> To: David Ahern <dsa@...ulusnetworks.com> Cc: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>, Linux Kernel Network Developers <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, Andrey Konovalov <andreyknvl@...gle.com> Subject: Re: [Patch net] ipv6: check for ip6_null_entry in __ip6_del_rt_siblings() On Mon, Feb 27, 2017 at 1:06 PM, David Ahern <dsa@...ulusnetworks.com> wrote: > On 2/27/17 1:04 PM, Cong Wang wrote: >>> >>> for (rt = fn->leaf; rt; rt = rt->dst.rt6_next) { >>> + /* do not allow deletion of the null route */ >>> + if (rt == net->ipv6.ip6_null_entry) >>> + continue; >>> >>> Fixes: 0ae8133586ad net: ipv6: Allow shorthand delete of all nexthops in >>> multipath route >> >> Note, I moved the check into __ip6_del_rt_siblings() because __ip6_del_rt() >> has a same check. >> > > that's b/c __ip6_del_rt has a second call path. __ip6_del_rt_siblings is > new and is not expecting to see the null entry. Catching it before the > dst_hold would be better. Yeah, but it also depends on if we want to continue after the null entry, at least __ip6_del_rt () returns an error for null entry, which looks more correct than continuing to proceed after it.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists