netdev - Re: [PATCH 1/6] netlink: fix missing destruction of rhash table in error case

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: <5a5d847c-f8e6-48a7-85ad-75e76105122d@mykernel.net>
Date:   Wed, 1 Jun 2022 15:47:07 +0800
From:   Chengguang Xu <cgxu519@...ernel.net>
To:     Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com>,
        Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>
Cc:     netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-staging@...ts.linux.dev,
        linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org, linux-samsung-soc@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-media@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/6] netlink: fix missing destruction of rhash table in
 error case

在 2022/5/31 19:25, Dan Carpenter 写道:
> On Tue, May 31, 2022 at 10:43:09AM +0200, Paolo Abeni wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> On Sun, 2022-05-29 at 23:34 +0800, Chengguang Xu wrote:
>>> Fix missing destruction(when '(--i) == 0') for error case in
>>> netlink_proto_init().
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Chengguang Xu <cgxu519@...ernel.net>
>>> ---
>>>   net/netlink/af_netlink.c | 2 +-
>>>   1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/net/netlink/af_netlink.c b/net/netlink/af_netlink.c
>>> index 0cd91f813a3b..bd0b090a378b 100644
>>> --- a/net/netlink/af_netlink.c
>>> +++ b/net/netlink/af_netlink.c
>>> @@ -2887,7 +2887,7 @@ static int __init netlink_proto_init(void)
>>>   	for (i = 0; i < MAX_LINKS; i++) {
>>>   		if (rhashtable_init(&nl_table[i].hash,
>>>   				    &netlink_rhashtable_params) < 0) {
>>> -			while (--i > 0)
>>> +			while (--i >= 0)
>>>   				rhashtable_destroy(&nl_table[i].hash);
>>>   			kfree(nl_table);
>>>   			goto panic;
>> The patch looks correct to me, but it looks like each patch in this
>> series is targeting a different tree. I suggest to re-send, splitting
>> the series into individual patches, and sending each of them to the
>> appropriate tree. You can retain Dan's Review tag.
> Since it looks like you're going to be resending these then could you
> add Fixes tags?  Please keep my Review tag.
>

OK, no problem.

Thanks,
Chengguang