netdev - Re: [PATCH v1] bridge: cfm: fix enum typo in br_cc_ccm_tx

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]

Message-ID: <20231220161742.GM882741@kernel.org>
Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2023 17:17:42 +0100
From: Simon Horman <horms@...nel.org>
To: Lin Ma <linma@....edu.cn>
Cc: roopa@...dia.com, razor@...ckwall.org, davem@...emloft.net,
	edumazet@...gle.com, kuba@...nel.org, pabeni@...hat.com,
	horatiu.vultur@...rochip.com, henrik.bjoernlund@...rochip.com,
	bridge@...ts.linux.dev, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1] bridge: cfm: fix enum typo in br_cc_ccm_tx_parse

On Wed, Dec 20, 2023 at 03:59:14PM +0800, Lin Ma wrote:
> It appears that there is a typo in the code where the nlattr array is
> being parsed with policy br_cfm_cc_ccm_tx_policy, but the instance is
> being accessed via IFLA_BRIDGE_CFM_CC_RDI_INSTANCE, which is associated
> with the policy br_cfm_cc_rdi_policy.
> 
> Though it seems like a harmless typo since these two enum owns the exact
> same value (1 here), it is quite misleading hence fix it by using the
> correct enum IFLA_BRIDGE_CFM_CC_CCM_TX_INSTANCE here.
> 
> Fixes: 2be665c3940d ("bridge: cfm: Netlink SET configuration Interface.")
> Signed-off-by: Lin Ma <linma@....edu.cn>

Thanks Lin Ma,

I agree with your analysis, that the problem was introduced in the
cited commit, and that it is resolved by your patch.

However, as there is no user-visible bug I don't believe this reaches
the bar for a 'fix' for Networking code. Accordingly, I think that
the Fixes tag should be dropped. And, instead cited commit can be mentioned
using something like "This problem was introduced by commit ...".

Also, as I don't think it is a fix I think it should be targeted at the
net-next tree:

	Subject: [PATCH net-next vX] ...

The above nits notwithstanding,

Reviewed-by: Simon Horman <horms@...nel.org>

> ---
>  net/bridge/br_cfm_netlink.c | 2 +-
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/net/bridge/br_cfm_netlink.c b/net/bridge/br_cfm_netlink.c
> index 5c4c369f8536..2faab44652e7 100644
> --- a/net/bridge/br_cfm_netlink.c
> +++ b/net/bridge/br_cfm_netlink.c
> @@ -362,7 +362,7 @@ static int br_cc_ccm_tx_parse(struct net_bridge *br, struct nlattr *attr,
>  
>  	memset(&tx_info, 0, sizeof(tx_info));
>  
> -	instance = nla_get_u32(tb[IFLA_BRIDGE_CFM_CC_RDI_INSTANCE]);
> +	instance = nla_get_u32(tb[IFLA_BRIDGE_CFM_CC_CCM_TX_INSTANCE]);
>  	nla_memcpy(&tx_info.dmac.addr,
>  		   tb[IFLA_BRIDGE_CFM_CC_CCM_TX_DMAC],
>  		   sizeof(tx_info.dmac.addr));
> -- 
> 2.17.1
> 
>