netdev - Re: [PATCH] cipso,calipso: resolve a number of problems with the DOI refcounts

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: <CAHC9VhTxfMOzABdAg=RO3k1cfyE2A2DEQ0gUQ9M6NVELpJVw7Q@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Thu, 4 Mar 2021 18:13:21 -0500
From:   Paul Moore <paul@...l-moore.com>
To:     David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Cc:     netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org,
        selinux@...r.kernel.org, dvyukov@...gle.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] cipso,calipso: resolve a number of problems with the DOI refcounts

On Thu, Mar 4, 2021 at 5:33 PM David Miller <davem@...emloft.net> wrote:
> From: Paul Moore <paul@...l-moore.com>
> Date: Thu, 04 Mar 2021 16:29:51 -0500
>
> > +static void calipso_doi_putdef(struct calipso_doi *doi_def);
> > +
>
> This is a global symbol, so why the static decl here?

To resolve this:

  CC      net/ipv6/calipso.o
net/ipv6/calipso.c: In function ‘calipso_doi_remove’:
net/ipv6/calipso.c:453:2: error: implicit declaration of function ‘calipso_doi_p
utdef’

I think there are some odd things with how the CALIPSO prototypes are
handled, some of that I'm guessing is due to handling IPv6
as-a-module, but regardless of the reason it seemed like the smallest
fix was to add the forward declaration at the top of the file.
Considering that I believe this should be sent to -stable I figured a
smaller patch, with less chance for merge conflicts, would be more
desirable.

Or are you simply concerned about the static tag?  I simply kept the
static from the function definition; removing it causes a mismatch
which makes the compiler unhappy.

Either way, if you want this done another way, let me know what you
want and I'll respin it.

-- 
paul moore
www.paul-moore.com