netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next] 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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CALs4sv1rG+DhgjLWWs_aMPQgFUFGq1MhBhWKK0A9=2T1jJDAgA@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Mon, 28 Nov 2022 14:14:10 +0530
From:   Pavan Chebbi <pavan.chebbi@...adcom.com>
To:     Dan Carpenter <error27@...il.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] bonding: uninitialized variable in bond_miimon_inspect()

On Mon, Nov 28, 2022 at 1:51 PM Dan Carpenter <error27@...il.com> wrote:
>
> The "ignore_updelay" variable needs to be initialized to false to
> prevent an uninitialized variable bug.
>
> Fixes: f8a65ab2f3ff ("bonding: fix link recovery in mode 2 when updelay is nonzero")
> Signed-off-by: Dan Carpenter <error27@...il.com>
> ---
>
> This was found by Smatch.  Another Smatch warning that might be worth
> investigating is:
>
> 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 don't know the code well enough to say if that's a real bug.
>
>  drivers/net/bonding/bond_main.c | 2 +-
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/net/bonding/bond_main.c b/drivers/net/bonding/bond_main.c
> index c87481033995..8a57a5681461 100644
> --- a/drivers/net/bonding/bond_main.c
> +++ b/drivers/net/bonding/bond_main.c
> @@ -2527,7 +2527,7 @@ static int bond_miimon_inspect(struct bonding *bond)
>         int link_state, commit = 0;
>         struct list_head *iter;
>         struct slave *slave;
> -       bool ignore_updelay;
> +       bool ignore_updelay = false;

Looks good to me. But can we have the declaration follow the reverse
xmas tree ordering?
Thanks

>
>         if (BOND_MODE(bond) == BOND_MODE_ACTIVEBACKUP) {
>                 ignore_updelay = !rcu_dereference(bond->curr_active_slave);
> --
> 2.35.1
>

Download attachment "smime.p7s" of type "application/pkcs7-signature" (4209 bytes)