On 12/07/12 at 09:18am, Dan Carpenter wrote:
quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
__IFLA_BRPORT_MAX is one larger than IFLA_BRPORT_MAX. We pass
IFLA_BRPORT_MAX to nla_parse_nested() so we need IFLA_BRPORT_MAX + 1
elements. Also Smatch complains that we read past the end of the array
when in br_set_port_flag() when it's called with IFLA_BRPORT_FAST_LEAVE.
Signed-off-by: Dan Carpenter <redacted>
---
Only needed in linux-next.
diff --git a/net/bridge/br_netlink.c b/net/bridge/br_netlink.c
index 850b7d1..cfc5cfe 100644
--- a/net/bridge/br_netlink.c
+++ b/net/bridge/br_netlink.c
@@ -239,7 +239,7 @@ int br_setlink(struct net_device *dev, struct nlmsghdr *nlh)
struct ifinfomsg *ifm;
struct nlattr *protinfo;
struct net_bridge_port *p;
- struct nlattr *tb[IFLA_BRPORT_MAX];
+ struct nlattr *tb[__IFLA_BRPORT_MAX];
int err;
ifm = nlmsg_data(nlh);
I know it's nitpicking but could you use IFLA_BRPORT_MAX+1 for
consistency?