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]
Date:   Mon, 27 Feb 2017 13:12:26 -0800
From:   Cong Wang <>
To:     David Ahern <>
Cc:     Eric Dumazet <>,
        Linux Kernel Network Developers <>,
        Andrey Konovalov <>
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 <> 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