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;