netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next v2] bonding: uninitialized variable in bond_miimon

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:   Mon, 28 Nov 2022 17:36:41 +0300
From:   Dan Carpenter <error27@...il.com>
To:     Pavan Chebbi <pavan.chebbi@...adcom.com>
Cc:     Jay Vosburgh <j.vosburgh@...il.com>,
        Jonathan Toppins <jtoppins@...hat.com>,
        Veaceslav Falico <vfalico@...il.com>,
        Andy Gospodarek <andy@...yhouse.net>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
        Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v2] bonding: uninitialized variable in
 bond_miimon_inspect()

On Mon, Nov 28, 2022 at 07:15:39PM +0530, Pavan Chebbi wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 28, 2022 at 4:36 PM Dan Carpenter <error27@...il.com> wrote:
> >
> > The "ignore_updelay" variable needs to be initialized to false.
> >
> > Fixes: f8a65ab2f3ff ("bonding: fix link recovery in mode 2 when updelay is nonzero")
> > Signed-off-by: Dan Carpenter <error27@...il.com>
> > ---
> > v2: Re-order so the declarations are in reverse Christmas tree order
> >
> Thanks,
> Reviewed-by: Pavan Chebbi <pavan.chebbi@...adcom.com>
> 
> > Don't forget about:
> > drivers/net/bonding/bond_main.c:5071 bond_update_slave_arr() warn: missing error code here? 'bond_3ad_get_active_agg_info()' failed. 'ret' = '0'
> >
> 
> I think that warning can be ignored, as bond_update_slave_arr() does
> consider the return value of bond_3ad_get_active_agg_info() but
> chooses to not bubble it up. Though the author of the function is the
> best person to answer it, at this point, it looks OK to me. Maybe a
> separate patch to address it would help to get the attention of the
> author.

Heh...  That's slightly vague.

You're wrong to say that none of the callers care about the error code.
It is checked in bond_slave_arr_handler().

regards,
dan carpenter