netdev - Re: [PATCH net] ipv6: no need to return rt->dst.error if it is not null entry.

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]

Date:   Fri, 21 Jul 2017 11:42:46 -0700
From:   Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com>
To:     Hangbin Liu <liuhangbin@...il.com>
Cc:     network dev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        Roopa Prabhu <roopa@...ulusnetworks.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net] ipv6: no need to return rt->dst.error if it is not
 null entry.

On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 8:23 AM, Hangbin Liu <liuhangbin@...il.com> wrote:
> 2017-07-20 23:06 GMT+08:00 Hangbin Liu <liuhangbin@...il.com>:
>>> +++ b/net/ipv6/route.c
>>> @@ -3637,12 +3637,6 @@ static int inet6_rtm_getroute(struct sk_buff *in_skb, struct nlmsghdr *nlh,
>>>                 dst = ip6_route_lookup(net, &fl6, 0);
>>>
>>>         rt = container_of(dst, struct rt6_info, dst);
>>> -       if (rt->dst.error) {
>>> -               err = rt->dst.error;
>>> -               ip6_rt_put(rt);
>>> -               goto errout;
>>> -       }
>>
>> hmm... or instead of remove this check, should we check all the entry? Like
>> if ((rt->dst.error && rt != net->ipv6.ip6_null_entry && rt !=
>                                                     ^^ mistake here
>> net->ipv6.ip6_blk_hole_entry) ||
>>      rt == net->ipv6.ip6_null_entry )
>
> Sorry,  there should be no need to check ip6_null_entry since the
> error is already
> -ENETUNREACH. So how about

Hmm? All of these 3 entries have error set, right??
So we should only check dst.error...