From: "Kent Yoder" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2007 16:26:41 -0600
> I was browsing through the xfrm_user.c code and noticed that it
> appears that in xfrm_add_sa_expire, the only possible return codes are
> -ENOENT and -EINVAL. Was this intentional, or is this a bug?
Please use netdev@vger.kernel.org for kernel networking
discussions, thanks.
Indeed, and the tabbing on the first "err = " assignment should
be a clue that some mistake might have been added.
It looks like the code has been like that from day one, I wonder
how Jamal tested this stuff :-)
I'm going to assume the intended logic, and fix it like this.
Jamal?
diff --git a/net/xfrm/xfrm_user.c b/net/xfrm/xfrm_user.c
index 2567453..924a2fe 100644
--- a/net/xfrm/xfrm_user.c
+++ b/net/xfrm/xfrm_user.c
@@ -1557,14 +1557,13 @@ static int xfrm_add_sa_expire(struct sk_buff *skb,
struct nlmsghdr *nlh,
struct xfrm_usersa_info *p = &ue->state;
x = xfrm_state_lookup(&p->id.daddr, p->id.spi, p->id.proto, p->family);
- err = -ENOENT;
+ err = -ENOENT;
if (x == NULL)
return err;
- err = -EINVAL;
-
spin_lock_bh(&x->lock);
+ err = -EINVAL;
if (x->km.state != XFRM_STATE_VALID)
goto out;
km_state_expired(x, ue->hard, current->pid);
@@ -1574,6 +1573,7 @@ static int xfrm_add_sa_expire(struct sk_buff *skb, struct
nlmsghdr *nlh,
xfrm_audit_log(NETLINK_CB(skb).loginuid, NETLINK_CB(skb).sid,
AUDIT_MAC_IPSEC_DELSA, 1, NULL, x);
}
+ err = 0;
out:
spin_unlock_bh(&x->lock);
xfrm_state_put(x);
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
