On Sun, Mar 11, 2018 at 05:12:09PM -0500, Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote:
> Hi Pablo,
>
> On 03/11/2018 05:04 PM, Pablo Neira Ayuso wrote:
> > On Tue, Mar 06, 2018 at 12:47:55PM -0600, Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote:
> > > In preparation to enabling -Wvla, remove VLA and replace it
> > > with dynamic memory allocation.
> >
> > Looks good but...
> >
> > > Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > ---
> > > net/netfilter/nfnetlink_cttimeout.c | 12 ++++++++++--
> > > 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/net/netfilter/nfnetlink_cttimeout.c b/net/netfilter/nfnetlink_cttimeout.c
> > > index 95b0470..a2f7d92 100644
> > > --- a/net/netfilter/nfnetlink_cttimeout.c
> > > +++ b/net/netfilter/nfnetlink_cttimeout.c
> > > @@ -52,18 +52,26 @@ ctnl_timeout_parse_policy(void *timeouts,
> > > struct net *net, const struct nlattr *attr)
> > > {
> > > int ret = 0;
> > > + struct nlattr **tb = NULL;
> >
> > I think we don't need to initialize this, right?
> >
>
> We actually do have to initialized it because in the unlikely case that the
> code block inside the 'if' below is not executed, then we will end up
> freeing an uninitialized pointer.
I see, you're right indeed.
We can probably simplify this code, but just doing:
if (!l4proto->ctnl_timeout.nlattr_to_obj))
return 0;
netlink attribute parsing here.
You could even remove the likely() thing, which doesn't make much
sense for control plane code.
I understand this is a larger change, but I think this function will
look better while we're removing VLA.
Would you mind having a look? I'd appreciate if so.
Thanks.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netfilter-devel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
