From: Colin Ian King <[email protected]>
It appears that there is a missing break statement for the AF_INET6 case
that falls through to the default WARN_ONCE case. I don't think that is
intentional. Fix this by adding in the missing break.
Addresses-Coverity: ("Missing break in switch")
Fixes: 4c203b0454b5 ("xfrm: remove eth_proto value from xfrm_state_afinfo")
Signed-off-by: Colin Ian King <[email protected]>
---
net/xfrm/xfrm_input.c | 1 +
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
diff --git a/net/xfrm/xfrm_input.c b/net/xfrm/xfrm_input.c
index 8a00cc94c32c..6088bc2dc11e 100644
--- a/net/xfrm/xfrm_input.c
+++ b/net/xfrm/xfrm_input.c
@@ -376,6 +376,7 @@ static int xfrm_prepare_input(struct xfrm_state *x, struct sk_buff *skb)
break;
case AF_INET6:
skb->protocol = htons(ETH_P_IPV6);
+ break;
default:
WARN_ON_ONCE(1);
break;
--
2.20.1
On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 11:36:24AM +0100, Colin King wrote:
> From: Colin Ian King <[email protected]>
>
> It appears that there is a missing break statement for the AF_INET6 case
> that falls through to the default WARN_ONCE case. I don't think that is
> intentional. Fix this by adding in the missing break.
>
> Addresses-Coverity: ("Missing break in switch")
> Fixes: 4c203b0454b5 ("xfrm: remove eth_proto value from xfrm_state_afinfo")
> Signed-off-by: Colin Ian King <[email protected]>
I have already a patch from Florian in queue to fix this.
Thanks anyway!
Colin King <[email protected]> wrote:
> From: Colin Ian King <[email protected]>
>
> It appears that there is a missing break statement for the AF_INET6 case
> that falls through to the default WARN_ONCE case. I don't think that is
> intentional. Fix this by adding in the missing break.
Yes, I sent same patch a few minutes ago:
https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/1114377/
I don't mind which one gets applied.