On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 01:12:31PM -0700, Joe Perches wrote: > 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? > Because I would assume if these aren't aligned the same way we have far more serious problems than just this one case. It would change the user space API and break network protocols. regards, dan carpenter -- 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
