[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAM_iQpWs3Z55=y0-=PJT6xZMv+Hw9JGPLFXmbr+35+70DAYsOQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 16 Apr 2021 10:14:52 -0700
From: Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com>
To: Du Cheng <ducheng2@...il.com>
Cc: Jamal Hadi Salim <jhs@...atatu.com>, Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>,
Linux Kernel Network Developers <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
Shuah Khan <skhan@...uxfoundation.org>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>,
syzbot+d50710fd0873a9c6b40c@...kaller.appspotmail.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] net: sched: tapr: prevent cycle_time == 0 in parse_taprio_schedule
On Thu, Apr 15, 2021 at 4:17 PM Du Cheng <ducheng2@...il.com> wrote:
> diff --git a/net/sched/sch_taprio.c b/net/sched/sch_taprio.c
> index 8287894541e3..abd6b176383c 100644
> --- a/net/sched/sch_taprio.c
> +++ b/net/sched/sch_taprio.c
> @@ -901,6 +901,10 @@ static int parse_taprio_schedule(struct taprio_sched *q, struct nlattr **tb,
>
> list_for_each_entry(entry, &new->entries, list)
> cycle = ktime_add_ns(cycle, entry->interval);
> +
> + if (!cycle)
> + return -EINVAL;
Just a nit: please add an extack to explain why we return EINVAL here.
Thanks.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists