On Thu, Nov 14, 2024 at 12:27:28PM -0700, Everest K.C. wrote:
> 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 ?
No need to resend. This is now applied to ipsec-next,
thanks a lot!
