When slave is NULL or slave_ops->ndo_neigh_setup is NULL, no error
return code of bond_neigh_init() is assigned.
To fix this bug, ret is assigned with -EINVAL in these cases.
Fixes: 9e99bfefdbce ("bonding: fix bond_neigh_init()")
Reported-by: TOTE Robot <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Jia-Ju Bai <[email protected]>
---
drivers/net/bonding/bond_main.c | 8 ++++++--
1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/net/bonding/bond_main.c b/drivers/net/bonding/bond_main.c
index 74cbbb22470b..456315bef3a8 100644
--- a/drivers/net/bonding/bond_main.c
+++ b/drivers/net/bonding/bond_main.c
@@ -3978,11 +3978,15 @@ static int bond_neigh_init(struct neighbour *n)
rcu_read_lock();
slave = bond_first_slave_rcu(bond);
- if (!slave)
+ if (!slave) {
+ ret = -EINVAL;
goto out;
+ }
slave_ops = slave->dev->netdev_ops;
- if (!slave_ops->ndo_neigh_setup)
+ if (!slave_ops->ndo_neigh_setup) {
+ ret = -EINVAL;
goto out;
+ }
/* TODO: find another way [1] to implement this.
* Passing a zeroed structure is fragile,
--
2.17.1
Hello:
This patch was applied to netdev/net.git (refs/heads/master):
On Sun, 7 Mar 2021 19:11:02 -0800 you wrote:
> When slave is NULL or slave_ops->ndo_neigh_setup is NULL, no error
> return code of bond_neigh_init() is assigned.
> To fix this bug, ret is assigned with -EINVAL in these cases.
>
> Fixes: 9e99bfefdbce ("bonding: fix bond_neigh_init()")
> Reported-by: TOTE Robot <[email protected]>
> Signed-off-by: Jia-Ju Bai <[email protected]>
>
> [...]
Here is the summary with links:
- net: bonding: fix error return code of bond_neigh_init()
https://git.kernel.org/netdev/net/c/2055a99da8a2
You are awesome, thank you!
--
Deet-doot-dot, I am a bot.
https://korg.docs.kernel.org/patchwork/pwbot.html
On 2021-03-08 5:11 AM, Jia-Ju Bai wrote:
> When slave is NULL or slave_ops->ndo_neigh_setup is NULL, no error
> return code of bond_neigh_init() is assigned.
> To fix this bug, ret is assigned with -EINVAL in these cases.
>
> Fixes: 9e99bfefdbce ("bonding: fix bond_neigh_init()")
> Reported-by: TOTE Robot <[email protected]>
> Signed-off-by: Jia-Ju Bai <[email protected]>
> ---
> drivers/net/bonding/bond_main.c | 8 ++++++--
> 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/net/bonding/bond_main.c b/drivers/net/bonding/bond_main.c
> index 74cbbb22470b..456315bef3a8 100644
> --- a/drivers/net/bonding/bond_main.c
> +++ b/drivers/net/bonding/bond_main.c
> @@ -3978,11 +3978,15 @@ static int bond_neigh_init(struct neighbour *n)
>
> rcu_read_lock();
> slave = bond_first_slave_rcu(bond);
> - if (!slave)
> + if (!slave) {
> + ret = -EINVAL;
> goto out;
> + }
> slave_ops = slave->dev->netdev_ops;
> - if (!slave_ops->ndo_neigh_setup)
> + if (!slave_ops->ndo_neigh_setup) {
> + ret = -EINVAL;
> goto out;
> + }
>
> /* TODO: find another way [1] to implement this.
> * Passing a zeroed structure is fragile,
>
Hi,
This breaks basic functionally that always worked. A slave doesn't need
to exists nor to implement ndo_neigh_setup.
Now trying to add a neigh entry because of that fails.
This commit needs to be reverted.
Thanks,
Roi
On 2021/3/10 17:24, Roi Dayan wrote:
>
>
> On 2021-03-08 5:11 AM, Jia-Ju Bai wrote:
>> When slave is NULL or slave_ops->ndo_neigh_setup is NULL, no error
>> return code of bond_neigh_init() is assigned.
>> To fix this bug, ret is assigned with -EINVAL in these cases.
>>
>> Fixes: 9e99bfefdbce ("bonding: fix bond_neigh_init()")
>> Reported-by: TOTE Robot <[email protected]>
>> Signed-off-by: Jia-Ju Bai <[email protected]>
>> ---
>> drivers/net/bonding/bond_main.c | 8 ++++++--
>> 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/net/bonding/bond_main.c
>> b/drivers/net/bonding/bond_main.c
>> index 74cbbb22470b..456315bef3a8 100644
>> --- a/drivers/net/bonding/bond_main.c
>> +++ b/drivers/net/bonding/bond_main.c
>> @@ -3978,11 +3978,15 @@ static int bond_neigh_init(struct neighbour *n)
>> rcu_read_lock();
>> slave = bond_first_slave_rcu(bond);
>> - if (!slave)
>> + if (!slave) {
>> + ret = -EINVAL;
>> goto out;
>> + }
>> slave_ops = slave->dev->netdev_ops;
>> - if (!slave_ops->ndo_neigh_setup)
>> + if (!slave_ops->ndo_neigh_setup) {
>> + ret = -EINVAL;
>> goto out;
>> + }
>> /* TODO: find another way [1] to implement this.
>> * Passing a zeroed structure is fragile,
>>
>
>
> Hi,
>
> This breaks basic functionally that always worked. A slave doesn't need
> to exists nor to implement ndo_neigh_setup.
> Now trying to add a neigh entry because of that fails.
> This commit needs to be reverted.
>
Okay, thanks for the explanation, and I am sorry for this false report...
Best wishes,
Jia-Ju Bai
On 3/10/21 10:24 AM, Roi Dayan wrote:
>
>
> On 2021-03-08 5:11 AM, Jia-Ju Bai wrote:
>> When slave is NULL or slave_ops->ndo_neigh_setup is NULL, no error
>> return code of bond_neigh_init() is assigned.
>> To fix this bug, ret is assigned with -EINVAL in these cases.
>>
>> Fixes: 9e99bfefdbce ("bonding: fix bond_neigh_init()")
>> Reported-by: TOTE Robot <[email protected]>
>> Signed-off-by: Jia-Ju Bai <[email protected]>
>> ---
>> drivers/net/bonding/bond_main.c | 8 ++++++--
>> 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/net/bonding/bond_main.c b/drivers/net/bonding/bond_main.c
>> index 74cbbb22470b..456315bef3a8 100644
>> --- a/drivers/net/bonding/bond_main.c
>> +++ b/drivers/net/bonding/bond_main.c
>> @@ -3978,11 +3978,15 @@ static int bond_neigh_init(struct neighbour *n)
>> rcu_read_lock();
>> slave = bond_first_slave_rcu(bond);
>> - if (!slave)
>> + if (!slave) {
>> + ret = -EINVAL;
>> goto out;
>> + }
>> slave_ops = slave->dev->netdev_ops;
>> - if (!slave_ops->ndo_neigh_setup)
>> + if (!slave_ops->ndo_neigh_setup) {
>> + ret = -EINVAL;
>> goto out;
>> + }
>> /* TODO: find another way [1] to implement this.
>> * Passing a zeroed structure is fragile,
>>
>
>
> Hi,
>
> This breaks basic functionally that always worked. A slave doesn't need
> to exists nor to implement ndo_neigh_setup.
> Now trying to add a neigh entry because of that fails.
> This commit needs to be reverted.
>
> Thanks,
> Roi
Agreed, this commit made no sense, please revert.
From: Eric Dumazet <[email protected]>
Date: Wed, 10 Mar 2021 17:55:04 +0100
>
> Agreed, this commit made no sense, please revert.
Done.