Hi,

On 07/01/18 03:28, Stefano Brivio wrote:
> On Sun,  7 Jan 2018 02:31:50 +0800
> Antonio Quartulli <a...@unstable.cc> wrote:
> 
>> When parsing and printing the unix sockets in unix_show(),
>> if the oldformat is detected, the peer_name member of the sockstat
>> object is left uninitialized (NULL).
> 
> Luckily, it is initialized. I'd rather say:
> 
>       [...]
>       object is not set (NULL).

ops, you are right! "is not set" makes more sense.

> 
>> For this reason, if a filter has been specified on the command line,
>> a strcmp() will crash when trying to access it.
>>
>> Avoid crash by checking that peer_name is not NULL before
>> passing it to strcmp().
>>
>> Cc: Stefano Brivio <sbri...@redhat.com>
>> Cc: Stephen Hemminger <step...@networkplumber.org>
>> Signed-off-by: Antonio Quartulli <a...@unstable.cc>
> 
> Fixes: 2d0e538f3e1c ("ss: Drop list traversal from unix_stats_print()")
> 
>> [...]
>>
>> diff --git a/misc/ss.c b/misc/ss.c
>> index b35859dc..29a25070 100644
>> --- a/misc/ss.c
>> +++ b/misc/ss.c
>> @@ -3711,7 +3711,10 @@ static int unix_show(struct filter *f)
>>                      };
>>  
>>                      memcpy(st.local.data, &u->name, sizeof(u->name));
>> -                    if (strcmp(u->peer_name, "*"))
>> +                    /* when parsing the old format rport is set to 0 and
>> +                     * therefore peer_name remains NULL
>> +                     */
> 
> Maybe this comment is a bit redundant, but I don't have a strong
> preference either.
> 

I thought explaining "why" it could be NULL would help the casual reader
understand why we do check it.
But now that we have the check, I think it's quick to understand why we
need it.

I'd leave to whoever is going to merge the match to decide to keep or
not the comment.

>> +                    if (u->peer_name && strcmp(u->peer_name, "*"))
>>                              memcpy(st.remote.data, &u->peer_name,
>>                                     sizeof(u->peer_name));
>>                      if (run_ssfilter(f->f, &st) == 0) {
> 
> FWIW:
> Reviewed-by: Stefano Brivio <sbri...@redhat.com>
> 


Thanks a lot, Stefano!

Should I send v2 with the commit message changed? Or can we leave this
to who will merge the change?


Regards,

-- 
Antonio Quartulli

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Reply via email to