1. 02 11月, 2019 1 次提交
  2. 27 10月, 2019 1 次提交
  3. 23 10月, 2019 1 次提交
  4. 06 10月, 2019 1 次提交
  5. 05 10月, 2019 1 次提交
  6. 03 10月, 2019 1 次提交
  7. 26 9月, 2019 1 次提交
  8. 21 9月, 2019 2 次提交
  9. 20 9月, 2019 1 次提交
  10. 05 9月, 2019 1 次提交
    • D
      selftest: A few cleanups for fib_nexthops.sh · 91bfb564
      David Ahern 提交于
      Cleanups of the tests in fib_nexthops.sh
      1. Several tests noted unexpected route output, but the
         discrepancy was not showing in the summary output and
         overlooked in the verbose output. Add a WARNING message
         to the summary output to make it clear a test is not showing
         expected output.
      
      2. Several check_* calls are missing extra data like scope and metric
         causing mismatches when the nexthops or routes are correct - some of
         them are a side effect of the evolving iproute2 command. Update the
         data to the expected output.
      
      3. Several check_routes are checking for the wrong nexthop data,
         most likely a copy-paste-update error.
      
      4. A couple of tests were re-using a nexthop id that already existed.
         Fix those to use a new id.
      
      Fixes: 6345266a ("selftests: Add test cases for nexthop objects")
      Signed-off-by: NDavid Ahern <dsahern@gmail.com>
      Signed-off-by: NDavid S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
      91bfb564
  11. 20 8月, 2019 1 次提交
    • F
      xfrm: policy: avoid warning splat when merging nodes · 769a807d
      Florian Westphal 提交于
      syzbot reported a splat:
       xfrm_policy_inexact_list_reinsert+0x625/0x6e0 net/xfrm/xfrm_policy.c:877
       CPU: 1 PID: 6756 Comm: syz-executor.1 Not tainted 5.3.0-rc2+ #57
       Call Trace:
        xfrm_policy_inexact_node_reinsert net/xfrm/xfrm_policy.c:922 [inline]
        xfrm_policy_inexact_node_merge net/xfrm/xfrm_policy.c:958 [inline]
        xfrm_policy_inexact_insert_node+0x537/0xb50 net/xfrm/xfrm_policy.c:1023
        xfrm_policy_inexact_alloc_chain+0x62b/0xbd0 net/xfrm/xfrm_policy.c:1139
        xfrm_policy_inexact_insert+0xe8/0x1540 net/xfrm/xfrm_policy.c:1182
        xfrm_policy_insert+0xdf/0xce0 net/xfrm/xfrm_policy.c:1574
        xfrm_add_policy+0x4cf/0x9b0 net/xfrm/xfrm_user.c:1670
        xfrm_user_rcv_msg+0x46b/0x720 net/xfrm/xfrm_user.c:2676
        netlink_rcv_skb+0x1f0/0x460 net/netlink/af_netlink.c:2477
        xfrm_netlink_rcv+0x74/0x90 net/xfrm/xfrm_user.c:2684
        netlink_unicast_kernel net/netlink/af_netlink.c:1302 [inline]
        netlink_unicast+0x809/0x9a0 net/netlink/af_netlink.c:1328
        netlink_sendmsg+0xa70/0xd30 net/netlink/af_netlink.c:1917
        sock_sendmsg_nosec net/socket.c:637 [inline]
        sock_sendmsg net/socket.c:657 [inline]
      
      There is no reproducer, however, the warning can be reproduced
      by adding rules with ever smaller prefixes.
      
      The sanity check ("does the policy match the node") uses the prefix value
      of the node before its updated to the smaller value.
      
      To fix this, update the prefix earlier.  The bug has no impact on tree
      correctness, this is only to prevent a false warning.
      
      Reported-by: syzbot+8cc27ace5f6972910b31@syzkaller.appspotmail.com
      Signed-off-by: NFlorian Westphal <fw@strlen.de>
      Signed-off-by: NSteffen Klassert <steffen.klassert@secunet.com>
      769a807d
  12. 18 8月, 2019 2 次提交
  13. 17 8月, 2019 1 次提交
    • D
      selftests: Fix get_ifidx and callers in nettest.c · 87caaaf2
      David Ahern 提交于
      Dan reported:
      
          The patch acda655f: "selftests: Add nettest" from Aug 1, 2019,
          leads to the following static checker warning:
      
                  ./tools/testing/selftests/net/nettest.c:1690 main()
                  warn: unsigned 'tmp' is never less than zero.
      
          ./tools/testing/selftests/net/nettest.c
            1680                  case '1':
            1681                          args.has_expected_raddr = 1;
            1682                          if (convert_addr(&args, optarg,
            1683                                           ADDR_TYPE_EXPECTED_REMOTE))
            1684                                  return 1;
            1685
            1686                          break;
            1687                  case '2':
            1688                          if (str_to_uint(optarg, 0, 0x7ffffff, &tmp) != 0) {
            1689                                  tmp = get_ifidx(optarg);
            1690                                  if (tmp < 0) {
      
          "tmp" is unsigned so it can't be negative.  Also all the callers assume
          that get_ifidx() returns negatives on error but it looks like it really
          returns zero on error so it's a bit unclear to me.
      
      Update get_ifidx to return -1 on errors and cleanup callers of it.
      
      Fixes: acda655f ("selftests: Add nettest")
      Reported-by: NDan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@oracle.com>
      Signed-off-by: NDavid Ahern <dsahern@gmail.com>
      Signed-off-by: NDavid S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
      87caaaf2
  14. 16 8月, 2019 2 次提交
  15. 10 8月, 2019 1 次提交
  16. 09 8月, 2019 1 次提交
  17. 06 8月, 2019 2 次提交
  18. 04 8月, 2019 15 次提交
  19. 01 8月, 2019 1 次提交
  20. 26 7月, 2019 1 次提交
  21. 24 7月, 2019 2 次提交