Makes sense.
How did you discover this - did you have an ipv6 test case or by
inspection or ...?
On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 8:36 PM, Nickolai Zeldovich
<nickolai@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> srcip_matches() previously had code like this:
>
> srcip_matches(..., struct sockaddr *rhs) {
> /* ... */
> struct sockaddr_in6 *vaddr6 = (struct sockaddr_in6 *) &rhs;
> return ipv6_addr_equal(..., &vaddr6->sin6_addr);
> }
>
> which interpreted the values on the stack after the 'rhs' pointer as an
> ipv6 address. The correct thing to do is to use 'rhs', not '&rhs'.
>
> Signed-off-by: Nickolai Zeldovich <nickolai@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> fs/cifs/connect.c | 2 +-
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/fs/cifs/connect.c b/fs/cifs/connect.c
> index 17c3643..12b3da3 100644
> --- a/fs/cifs/connect.c
> +++ b/fs/cifs/connect.c
> @@ -1917,7 +1917,7 @@ srcip_matches(struct sockaddr *srcaddr, struct sockaddr *rhs)
> }
> case AF_INET6: {
> struct sockaddr_in6 *saddr6 = (struct sockaddr_in6 *)srcaddr;
> - struct sockaddr_in6 *vaddr6 = (struct sockaddr_in6 *)&rhs;
> + struct sockaddr_in6 *vaddr6 = (struct sockaddr_in6 *)rhs;
> return ipv6_addr_equal(&saddr6->sin6_addr, &vaddr6->sin6_addr);
> }
> default:
> --
> 1.7.10.4
>
--
Thanks,
Steve
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-cifs" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
