From: Joe Perches <joe@xxxxxxxxxxx> Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2013 13:12:31 -0700 > On Mon, 2013-07-29 at 23:01 +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote: >> On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 12:44:32PM -0700, Joe Perches wrote: >> > On Mon, 2013-07-29 at 22:36 +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote: >> > > opt.__reserved isn't cleared so we leak a byte of stack information. >> > [] >> > > diff --git a/net/sched/sch_cbq.c b/net/sched/sch_cbq.c >> > [] >> > > @@ -1469,6 +1469,7 @@ static int cbq_dump_wrr(struct sk_buff *skb, struct cbq_class *cl) >> > > opt.allot = cl->allot; >> > > opt.priority = cl->priority + 1; >> > > opt.cpriority = cl->cpriority + 1; >> > > + opt.__reserved = 0; >> > > opt.weight = cl->weight; >> > > if (nla_put(skb, TCA_CBQ_WRROPT, sizeof(opt), &opt)) >> > > goto nla_put_failure; >> > >> > Alignment isn't guaranteed here so it'd >> > probably be better with a memset. >> > >> >> Hm... Which arches would align it differently? > > Hey Dan. > > None so far as I know, but what difference does it make > when it's a general correctness issue? Should see if the compiler optimizes the spurious stores away, and if not we can use an initializer. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kernel-janitors" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
