netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next 3/6] net: dcb: add new rewrite table

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, 16 Jan 2023 12:52:36 +0000
From:   <Daniel.Machon@...rochip.com>
To:     <error27@...il.com>
CC:     <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, <davem@...emloft.net>,
        <edumazet@...gle.com>, <kuba@...nel.org>, <pabeni@...hat.com>,
        <Lars.Povlsen@...rochip.com>, <Steen.Hegelund@...rochip.com>,
        <UNGLinuxDriver@...rochip.com>, <joe@...ches.com>,
        <Horatiu.Vultur@...rochip.com>, <Julia.Lawall@...ia.fr>,
        <petrm@...dia.com>, <vladimir.oltean@....com>,
        <maxime.chevallier@...tlin.com>,
        <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
        <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 3/6] net: dcb: add new rewrite table

Hi Dan,
Thank you for your feedback.

> On Thu, Jan 12, 2023 at 09:15:51PM +0100, Daniel Machon wrote:
> > +/* Get protocol value from rewrite entry. */
> > +u16 dcb_getrewr(struct net_device *dev, struct dcb_app *app)
>    ^^^
> 
> > +{
> > +     struct dcb_app_type *itr;
> > +     u8 proto = 0;
> 
> Should "proto" be a u16 to match itr->app.protocol and the return type?

It should.

> 
> > +
> > +     spin_lock_bh(&dcb_lock);
> > +     itr = dcb_rewr_lookup(app, dev->ifindex, -1);
> > +     if (itr)
> > +             proto = itr->app.protocol;
> > +     spin_unlock_bh(&dcb_lock);
> > +
> > +     return proto;
> > +}
> > +EXPORT_SYMBOL(dcb_getrewr);
> > +
> > + /* Add rewrite entry to the rewrite list. */
> > +int dcb_setrewr(struct net_device *dev, struct dcb_app *new)
> > +{
> > +     int err = 0;
> 
> No need to initialize this.  It only disables static checkers and
> triggers a false positive about dead stores.

Yes, you are right :)

Will be fixed in next version.

/Daniel