Hashing the peer key was introduced for AF_INET, but gcc
warns about the rxrpc_peer_hash_key function returning uninitialized
data for any other value of srx->transport.family:
net/rxrpc/peer_object.c: In function 'rxrpc_peer_hash_key':
net/rxrpc/peer_object.c:57:15: error: 'p' may be used uninitialized in this function [-Werror=maybe-uninitialized]
Assuming that nothing else can be set here, this changes the
function to just return zero in case of an unknown address
family.
Fixes: be6e6707f6ee ("rxrpc: Rework peer object handling to use hash table and RCU")
Signed-off-by: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
---
This showed up today in linux-next, no idea if my patch is the
right solution for the problem, so please review carefully.
net/rxrpc/peer_object.c | 2 ++
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
@@ -50,6 +50,8 @@ static unsigned long rxrpc_peer_hash_key(struct rxrpc_local *local,size=sizeof(srx->transport.sin.sin_addr);p=(u16*)&srx->transport.sin.sin_addr;break;+default:+return0;}/* Step through the peer address in 16-bit portions for speed */
From: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com> Date: 2016-06-21 08:57:34
Arnd Bergmann [off-list ref] wrote:
Hashing the peer key was introduced for AF_INET, but gcc
warns about the rxrpc_peer_hash_key function returning uninitialized
data for any other value of srx->transport.family:
net/rxrpc/peer_object.c: In function 'rxrpc_peer_hash_key':
net/rxrpc/peer_object.c:57:15: error: 'p' may be used uninitialized in this function [-Werror=maybe-uninitialized]
Assuming that nothing else can be set here, this changes the
function to just return zero in case of an unknown address
family.
I'm actually more tempted to put a BUG() in there because if any new family
support (say AF_INET6) is added, I want to make sure I catch all the places.
David
On Tuesday, June 21, 2016 9:48:52 AM CEST David Howells wrote:
Arnd Bergmann [off-list ref] wrote:
quoted
Hashing the peer key was introduced for AF_INET, but gcc
warns about the rxrpc_peer_hash_key function returning uninitialized
data for any other value of srx->transport.family:
net/rxrpc/peer_object.c: In function 'rxrpc_peer_hash_key':
net/rxrpc/peer_object.c:57:15: error: 'p' may be used uninitialized in this function [-Werror=maybe-uninitialized]
Assuming that nothing else can be set here, this changes the
function to just return zero in case of an unknown address
family.
I'm actually more tempted to put a BUG() in there because if any new family
support (say AF_INET6) is added, I want to make sure I catch all the places.
Makes sense. Do you want to do the patch yourself, or should I send
a new one doing that?
Maybe WARN() would be better than BUG()? That would still get the attention
it needs but not kill the process.
Arnd
From: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com> Date: 2016-06-21 10:06:51
Arnd Bergmann [off-list ref] wrote:
quoted
I'm actually more tempted to put a BUG() in there because if any new family
support (say AF_INET6) is added, I want to make sure I catch all the places.
Makes sense. Do you want to do the patch yourself, or should I send
a new one doing that?
Maybe WARN() would be better than BUG()? That would still get the attention
it needs but not kill the process.