On Wed, Nov 13, 2024 at 3:59 AM Simon Horman <horms@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Nov 12, 2024 at 04:36:06PM -0700, Everest K.C. wrote:
> > Error handling is missing when call to nla_put_u32() fails.
> > Handle the error when the call to nla_put_u32() returns an error.
> >
> > The error was reported by Coverity Scan.
> > Report:
> > CID 1601525: (#1 of 1): Unused value (UNUSED_VALUE)
> > returned_value: Assigning value from nla_put_u32(skb, XFRMA_SA_PCPU, x->pcpu_num)
> > to err here, but that stored value is overwritten before it can be used
> >
> > Fixes: 1ddf9916ac09 ("xfrm: Add support for per cpu xfrm state handling.")
> > Signed-off-by: Everest K.C. <everestkc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
> Reviewed-by: Simon Horman <horms@xxxxxxxxxx>
>
> For future reference, I think the appropriate target for this tree
> is ipsec-next rather than next.
>
> Subject: [PATCH ipsec-next] xfrm: ...
Should I send a patch to ipsec-next ?
>
> ...
- Everest K.C.
