[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <11c76aa6-4c19-4f1d-86dd-e94e683dbd64@kili.mountain>
Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2023 09:32:51 +0300
From: Dan Carpenter <error27@...il.com>
To: David Ahern <dsahern@...nel.org>
Cc: Haoyi Liu <iccccc@...t.edu.cn>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
hust-os-kernel-patches@...glegroups.com, yalongz@...t.edu.cn,
Dongliang Mu <dzm91@...t.edu.cn>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v2] net/ipv6: silence 'passing zero to
ERR_PTR()' warning
On Thu, Apr 13, 2023 at 06:32:24PM -0600, David Ahern wrote:
> On 4/13/23 4:10 AM, Haoyi Liu wrote:
> > Smatch complains that if xfrm_lookup() returns NULL then this does a
> > weird thing with "err":
>
> xfrm_lookup is a wrapper around xfrm_lookup_with_ifid which returns
> either either a valid dst or ERR_PTR(err).
Also it can return NULL.
net/xfrm/xfrm_policy.c
3229 dst = dst_orig;
3230 }
3231 ok:
3232 xfrm_pols_put(pols, drop_pols);
3233 if (dst && dst->xfrm &&
^^^
"dst" is NULL.
3234 dst->xfrm->props.mode == XFRM_MODE_TUNNEL)
3235 dst->flags |= DST_XFRM_TUNNEL;
3236 return dst;
^^^^^^^^^^^
3237
So in the original code what happened here was:
net/ipv6/icmp.c
395 dst2 = xfrm_lookup(net, dst2, flowi6_to_flowi(&fl2), sk, XFRM_LOOKUP_ICMP);
396 if (!IS_ERR(dst2)) {
xfrm_lookup() returns NULL. NULL is not an error pointer.
397 dst_release(dst);
398 dst = dst2;
We set "dst" to NULL.
399 } else {
400 err = PTR_ERR(dst2);
401 if (err == -EPERM) {
402 dst_release(dst);
403 return dst2;
404 } else
405 goto relookup_failed;
406 }
407
408 relookup_failed:
409 if (dst)
410 return dst;
dst is not NULL so we don't return it.
411 return ERR_PTR(err);
However "err" is not set so we do return NULL and Smatch complains about
that.
Returning ERR_PTR(0); is not necessarily a bug, however 80% of the time
in newly introduced code it is a bug. Here, returning NULL is correct.
So this is a false positive, but the code is just wibbly winding and so
difficult to read.
412 }
regards,
dan carpenter
Powered by blists - more mailing lists