On 20/12/2023 18:34, Lin Ma wrote:
> It appears that there is a typo in the code where the nlattr array is
> being parsed with policy br_cfm_cc_ccm_tx_policy, but the instance is
> being accessed via IFLA_BRIDGE_CFM_CC_RDI_INSTANCE, which is associated
> with the policy br_cfm_cc_rdi_policy.
>
> This problem was introduced by commit 2be665c3940d ("bridge: cfm: Netlink
> SET configuration Interface.").
>
> Though it seems like a harmless typo since these two enum owns the exact
> same value (1 here), it is quite misleading hence fix it by using the
> correct enum IFLA_BRIDGE_CFM_CC_CCM_TX_INSTANCE here.
>
> Signed-off-by: Lin Ma <linma@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Reviewed-by: Simon Horman <horms@xxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> V1 -> V2: remove Fixes tag as this patch resolves nothing but a typo.
>
> net/bridge/br_cfm_netlink.c | 2 +-
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/net/bridge/br_cfm_netlink.c b/net/bridge/br_cfm_netlink.c
> index 5c4c369f8536..2faab44652e7 100644
> --- a/net/bridge/br_cfm_netlink.c
> +++ b/net/bridge/br_cfm_netlink.c
> @@ -362,7 +362,7 @@ static int br_cc_ccm_tx_parse(struct net_bridge *br, struct nlattr *attr,
>
> memset(&tx_info, 0, sizeof(tx_info));
>
> - instance = nla_get_u32(tb[IFLA_BRIDGE_CFM_CC_RDI_INSTANCE]);
> + instance = nla_get_u32(tb[IFLA_BRIDGE_CFM_CC_CCM_TX_INSTANCE]);
> nla_memcpy(&tx_info.dmac.addr,
> tb[IFLA_BRIDGE_CFM_CC_CCM_TX_DMAC],
> sizeof(tx_info.dmac.addr));
Acked-by: Nikolay Aleksandrov <razor@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
