Hi! > From: Florian Westphal <fw@xxxxxxxxx> > > [ Upstream commit fa5950e498e7face21a1761f327e6c1152f778c3 ] > > None of these spots really needs to crash the kernel. > In one two cases we can jsut report error to userspace, in the other > cases we can just use WARN_ON (and leak memory instead). Do these conditions trigger for someone, to warrant -stable patch? > +++ b/net/netfilter/nft_cmp.c > @@ -79,7 +79,8 @@ static int nft_cmp_init(const struct nft_ctx *ctx, const struct nft_expr *expr, > > err = nft_data_init(NULL, &priv->data, sizeof(priv->data), &desc, > tb[NFTA_CMP_DATA]); > - BUG_ON(err < 0); > + if (err < 0) > + return err; > > priv->sreg = nft_parse_register(tb[NFTA_CMP_SREG]); > err = nft_validate_register_load(priv->sreg, desc.len); > @@ -129,7 +130,8 @@ static int nft_cmp_fast_init(const struct nft_ctx *ctx, > > err = nft_data_init(NULL, &data, sizeof(data), &desc, > tb[NFTA_CMP_DATA]); > - BUG_ON(err < 0); > + if (err < 0) > + return err; > > priv->sreg = nft_parse_register(tb[NFTA_CMP_SREG]); > err = nft_validate_register_load(priv->sreg, desc.len); This goes from "kill kernel with backtrace" to "silently return failure". Should WARN_ON() be preserved here? Best regards, Pavel -- (english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek (cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
