[PATCH] um: vector: fix return value check in vector_legacy_rx

[Anton Ivanov]

On 05/01/2024 08:42, Johannes Berg wrote:
> On Thu, 2024-01-04 at 22:05 +0100, Richard Weinberger wrote:
>> On Fri, Oct 6, 2023 at 2:28 PM Ma Ke <make_ruc2021 at 163.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> In vector_legacy_rx, to avoid an unexpected result returned by
>>> pskb_trim, we should check the return value of pskb_trim().
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Ma Ke <make_ruc2021 at 163.com>
>>> ---
>>>   arch/um/drivers/vector_kern.c | 3 ++-
>>>   1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/arch/um/drivers/vector_kern.c b/arch/um/drivers/vector_kern.c
>>> index 131b7cb29576..822a8c0cdcc1 100644
>>> --- a/arch/um/drivers/vector_kern.c
>>> +++ b/arch/um/drivers/vector_kern.c
>>> @@ -890,7 +890,8 @@ static int vector_legacy_rx(struct vector_private *vp)
>>>                                          skb->ip_summed = CHECKSUM_UNNECESSARY;
>>>                                  }
>>>                          }
>>> -                       pskb_trim(skb, pkt_len - vp->rx_header_size);
>>> +                       if (pskb_trim(skb, pkt_len - vp->rx_header_size))
>>> +                               return 0;
>>
>> I think this adds a memory leak. Also, can pskb_trim() really fail in
>> this scenario?
>> The function controls skb creation and knows all lengths.
>>
> We had pretty much the exact same discussion in the other patch ...
> 
> https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/linux-um/patch/20231007005104.3994678-1-make_ruc2021@163.com/
> 
> 
> No point arguing with people who care about static checkers only, I
> guess. This person here never even came back to respond to the comments,
> my take is they're throwing patches over the wall they didn't think
> about, just to see what sticks.

CV padding, the 2024 way. Accomplishments: submitted 231 patches to the 
linux kernel.

> 
> johannes
> 
> 

-- 
Anton R. Ivanov
Cambridgegreys Limited. Registered in England. Company Number 10273661
https://www.cambridgegreys.com/