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:   Tue, 29 Nov 2022 15:51:18 +0300
From:   Dan Carpenter <error27@...il.com>
To:     Jay Vosburgh <jay.vosburgh@...onical.com>
Cc:     Jonathan Toppins <jtoppins@...hat.com>,
        Pavan Chebbi <pavan.chebbi@...adcom.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 10:30:15AM -0800, Jay Vosburgh wrote:
> 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>
> 
> Acked-by: Jay Vosburgh <jay.vosburgh@...onical.com>
> 
> >---
> >v2: Re-order so the declarations are in reverse Christmas tree order
> >
> >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'
> 
> 	The code around the cited line is correct.  A -1 return from
> bond_3ad_get_active_agg_info is not indicative of an error in the sense
> that something has failed, but indicates that there is no active
> aggregator.  The code correctly returns 0 from bond_update_slave_arr, as
> returning non-zero would cause bond_slave_arr_handler to loop, retrying
> the call to bond_update_slave_arr (via workqueue).
> 

Awesome, thanks for taking a look at this.

regards,
dan carpenter