On 7/4/17, 8:26 AM, "netdev-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx on behalf of Daniel Borkmann" <netdev-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx on behalf of daniel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
[ +Lawrence ]
On 07/04/2017 05:21 PM, Colin King wrote:
> From: Colin Ian King <colin.king@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
> There appears to be a missing break in the TCP_BPF_SNDCWND_CLAMP case.
> Currently the non-error path where val is greater than zero falls through
> to the default case that sets the error return to -EINVAL. Add in
> the missing break.
>
> Detected by CoverityScan, CID#1449376 ("Missing break in switch")
>
> Fixes: 13bf96411ad2 ("bpf: Adds support for setting sndcwnd clamp")
> Signed-off-by: Colin Ian King <colin.king@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Acked-by: Daniel Borkmann daniel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Acked-by: Lawrence Brakmo <brakmo@xxxxxx>
> ---
> net/core/filter.c | 1 +
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
>
> diff --git a/net/core/filter.c b/net/core/filter.c
> index 94169572d002..c7f737058d89 100644
> --- a/net/core/filter.c
> +++ b/net/core/filter.c
> @@ -2867,6 +2867,7 @@ BPF_CALL_5(bpf_setsockopt, struct bpf_sock_ops_kern *, bpf_sock,
> tp->snd_cwnd_clamp = val;
> tp->snd_ssthresh = val;
> }
> + break;
> default:
> ret = -EINVAL;
> }
>
��.n��������+%������w��{.n����z�ޗ�����n�r������&��z�ޗ�zf���h���~����������_��+v���)ߣ�
