Re: [PATCH 3/4] NET: NETROM: Cleanup argument SIOCADDRT ioctl argument checking.
From: walter harms <hidden>
Date: 2011-11-25 11:22:32
Also in:
linux-hams
Am 25.11.2011 10:09, schrieb Ralf Baechle:
quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
nr_route.ndigis is unsigned int so the nr_route.ndigis < 0 expression is never true and can be dropped. Doing the nr_ax25_dev_get call later allows the nr_route.ndigis test to bail out without having to dev_put. Signed-off-by: Ralf Baechle <redacted> Cc: Thomas Osterried <redacted> --- net/netrom/nr_route.c | 6 ++---- 1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)diff --git a/net/netrom/nr_route.c b/net/netrom/nr_route.c index 8d7716c..2cf3301 100644 --- a/net/netrom/nr_route.c +++ b/net/netrom/nr_route.c@@ -670,12 +670,10 @@ int nr_rt_ioctl(unsigned int cmd, void __user *arg) case SIOCADDRT: if (copy_from_user(&nr_route, arg, sizeof(struct nr_route_struct))) return -EFAULT; - if ((dev = nr_ax25_dev_get(nr_route.device)) == NULL) + if (nr_route.ndigis > AX25_MAX_DIGIS) return -EINVAL; - if (nr_route.ndigis < 0 || nr_route.ndigis > AX25_MAX_DIGIS) { - dev_put(dev); + if ((dev = nr_ax25_dev_get(nr_route.device)) == NULL) return -EINVAL; - } switch (nr_route.type) { case NETROM_NODE: if (strnlen(nr_route.mnemonic, 7) == 7) {
I realy do not know if that matters but some use AX25_MAX_DIGIS as array
and therefore it should be >=AX25_MAX_DIGIS.
struct rose_route_struct {
rose_address address;
unsigned short mask;
ax25_address neighbour;
char device[16];
unsigned char ndigis;
ax25_address digipeaters[AX25_MAX_DIGIS];
};