netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next] l2tp: remove unneeded null check in l2tp_v2_session_get

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: <20240903072417.GN23170@kernel.org>
Date: Tue, 3 Sep 2024 08:24:17 +0100
From: Simon Horman <horms@...nel.org>
To: James Chapman <jchapman@...alix.com>
Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org, davem@...emloft.net, edumazet@...gle.com,
	kuba@...nel.org, pabeni@...hat.com, dsahern@...nel.org,
	tparkin@...alix.com, kernel test robot <lkp@...el.com>,
	Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next] l2tp: remove unneeded null check in
 l2tp_v2_session_get_next

On Mon, Sep 02, 2024 at 03:29:53PM +0100, James Chapman wrote:
> Sessions in l2tp_v2_session_idr always have a non-null session->tunnel
> pointer since l2tp_session_register sets it before inserting the
> session into the IDR. Therefore the null check on session->tunnel in
> l2tp_v2_session_get_next is redundant and can be removed.
> 
> Fixes: aa92c1cec92b ("l2tp: add tunnel/session get_next helpers")

Hi James,

As this patch doesn't appear to fix a bug I don't think a Fixes tag is
warranted. With that in mind, if you want to cite the above commit you can
just include the following text somewhere in the patch description.

commit aa92c1cec92b ("l2tp: add tunnel/session get_next helpers")

> Reported-by: kernel test robot <lkp@...el.com>
> Closes: https://lore.kernel.org/r/202408111407.HtON8jqa-lkp@intel.com/
> CC: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...aro.org>
> Signed-off-by: James Chapman <jchapman@...alix.com>
> Signed-off-by: Tom Parkin <tparkin@...alix.com>

And as you posted the patch, it would be slightly more intuitive
if your SoB line came last. But I've seen conflicting advice about
the order of tags within the past weeks.

The above notwithstanding, this looks good to me.

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