Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
From:   Jiasheng Jiang <jiasheng@iscas.ac.cn>
To:     pshelar@ovn.org, davem@davemloft.net, kuba@kernel.org
Cc:     netdev@vger.kernel.org, dev@openvswitch.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Jiasheng Jiang <jiasheng@iscas.ac.cn>
Subject: [PATCH] openvswitch: Fix condition check by using nla_ok()
Date:   Thu, 16 Sep 2021 01:43:23 +0000
Message-Id: <1631756603-3706451-1-git-send-email-jiasheng@iscas.ac.cn>
Precedence: bulk

Just using 'rem > 0' might be unsafe, so it's better
to use the nla_ok() instead.
Because we can see from the nla_next() that
'*remaining' might be smaller than 'totlen'. And nla_ok()
will avoid it happening.

Signed-off-by: Jiasheng Jiang <jiasheng@iscas.ac.cn>
---
 net/openvswitch/actions.c | 2 +-
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/net/openvswitch/actions.c b/net/openvswitch/actions.c
index 77d924a..116e38a 100644
--- a/net/openvswitch/actions.c
+++ b/net/openvswitch/actions.c
@@ -1238,7 +1238,7 @@ static int do_execute_actions(struct datapath *dp, struct sk_buff *skb,
 	const struct nlattr *a;
 	int rem;
 
-	for (a = attr, rem = len; rem > 0;
+	for (a = attr, rem = len; nla_ok(a, rem);
 	     a = nla_next(a, &rem)) {
 		int err = 0;
 
-- 
2.7.4