On Thu, Jul 04, 2019 at 12:24:49PM -0700, David Miller wrote:
> From: Ido Schimmel <ido...@idosch.org>
> Date: Thu,  4 Jul 2019 19:26:38 +0300
> 
> > Both ip_neigh_gw4() and ip_neigh_gw6() can return either a valid pointer
> > or an error pointer, but the code currently checks that the pointer is
> > not NULL.
>  ...
> > @@ -447,7 +447,7 @@ static struct neighbour *ipv4_neigh_lookup(const struct 
> > dst_entry *dst,
> >             n = ip_neigh_gw4(dev, pkey);
> >     }
> >  
> > -   if (n && !refcount_inc_not_zero(&n->refcnt))
> > +   if (!IS_ERR(n) && !refcount_inc_not_zero(&n->refcnt))
> >             n = NULL;
> >  
> >     rcu_read_unlock_bh();
> 
> Don't the callers expect only non-error pointers?

It is actually OK to return an error pointer here. In fact, before the
commit I cited the function returned the return value of neigh_create().

If you think it's clearer, we can do this instead:

diff --git a/net/ipv4/route.c b/net/ipv4/route.c
index 8ea0735a6754..40697fcd2889 100644
--- a/net/ipv4/route.c
+++ b/net/ipv4/route.c
@@ -447,6 +447,9 @@ static struct neighbour *ipv4_neigh_lookup(const struct 
dst_entry *dst,
                n = ip_neigh_gw4(dev, pkey);
        }
 
+       if (IS_ERR(n))
+               n = NULL;
+
        if (n && !refcount_inc_not_zero(&n->refcnt))
                n = NULL;

Reply via email to