netdev - Re: [PATCH] test_bpf: Fix NULL vs IS_ERR() check in test_skb

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: <c76d47e1-100c-c2f3-4712-b338b80673f7@iogearbox.net>
Date:   Wed, 28 Mar 2018 20:57:27 +0200
From:   Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>
To:     Yonghong Song <yhs@...com>,
        Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com>,
        Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>
Cc:     netdev@...r.kernel.org, kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org,
        davem@...emloft.net
Subject: Re: [PATCH] test_bpf: Fix NULL vs IS_ERR() check in
 test_skb_segment()

Hi David,

On 03/28/2018 06:19 PM, Yonghong Song wrote:
> On 3/28/18 4:48 AM, Dan Carpenter wrote:
>> The skb_segment() function returns error pointers on error.  It never
>> returns NULL.
>>
>> Fixes: 76db8087c4c9 ("net: bpf: add a test for skb_segment in test_bpf module")
>> Signed-off-by: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com>
>>
>> diff --git a/lib/test_bpf.c b/lib/test_bpf.c
>> index b2badf6b23cd..8e157806df7a 100644
>> --- a/lib/test_bpf.c
>> +++ b/lib/test_bpf.c
>> @@ -6649,7 +6649,7 @@ static __init int test_skb_segment(void)
>>       }
>>         segs = skb_segment(skb, features);
>> -    if (segs) {
>> +    if (!IS_ERR(segs)) {
>>           kfree_skb_list(segs);
>>           ret = 0;
>>           pr_info("%s: success in skb_segment!", __func__);
> 
> Oh, my bad. Thanks for the fix!
> Reviewed-by: Yonghong Song <yhs@...com>

If you have a chance, please take this fix directly into your net-next tree
since it also contains the original commit 76db8087c4c9 ("net: bpf: add a
test for skb_segment in test_bpf module"), which is not in the bpf-next tree
at this point.

Thanks a lot,
Daniel