Message ID | 1487898534-64560-2-git-send-email-jarno@ovn.org |
---|---|
State | Accepted |
Delegated to: | Pablo Neira |
Headers | show |
On Thu, Feb 23, 2017 at 05:08:54PM -0800, Jarno Rajahalme wrote: > Commit 4dee62b1b9b4 ("netfilter: nf_ct_expect: nf_ct_expect_insert() > returns void") inadvertently changed the successful return value of > nf_ct_expect_related_report() from 0 to 1 due to > __nf_ct_expect_check() returning 1 on success. Prevent this > regression in the future by changing the return value of > __nf_ct_expect_check() to 0 on success. We used to return 0 via __nf_ct_expect_check() in the past, not anymore for a while. So even if this doesn't fix anything, I'm fine with this change to prevent more sloppy updates on this code. Applied, thanks. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netfilter-devel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
diff --git a/net/netfilter/nf_conntrack_expect.c b/net/netfilter/nf_conntrack_expect.c index d6ace69..4b2e1fb 100644 --- a/net/netfilter/nf_conntrack_expect.c +++ b/net/netfilter/nf_conntrack_expect.c @@ -410,7 +410,7 @@ static inline int __nf_ct_expect_check(struct nf_conntrack_expect *expect) struct net *net = nf_ct_exp_net(expect); struct hlist_node *next; unsigned int h; - int ret = 1; + int ret = 0; if (!master_help) { ret = -ESHUTDOWN; @@ -460,7 +460,7 @@ int nf_ct_expect_related_report(struct nf_conntrack_expect *expect, spin_lock_bh(&nf_conntrack_expect_lock); ret = __nf_ct_expect_check(expect); - if (ret <= 0) + if (ret < 0) goto out; nf_ct_expect_insert(expect);