Commit e4eda884 authored by David S. Miller's avatar David S. Miller

net: Make IP alignment calulations clearer.

The assignmnet:

	ip_align = strict ? 2 : NET_IP_ALIGN;

in compare_pkt_ptr_alignment() trips up Coverity because we can only
get to this code when strict is true, therefore ip_align will always
be 2 regardless of NET_IP_ALIGN's value.

So just assign directly to '2' and explain the situation in the
comment above.
Reported-by: default avatar"Gustavo A. R. Silva" <garsilva@embeddedor.com>
Signed-off-by: default avatarDavid S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
parent 751da2a6
......@@ -808,11 +808,15 @@ static int check_pkt_ptr_alignment(const struct bpf_reg_state *reg,
reg_off += reg->aux_off;
}
/* skb->data is NET_IP_ALIGN-ed, but for strict alignment checking
* we force this to 2 which is universally what architectures use
* when they don't set CONFIG_HAVE_EFFICIENT_UNALIGNED_ACCESS.
*/
ip_align = strict ? 2 : NET_IP_ALIGN;
/* For platforms that do not have a Kconfig enabling
* CONFIG_HAVE_EFFICIENT_UNALIGNED_ACCESS the value of
* NET_IP_ALIGN is universally set to '2'. And on platforms
* that do set CONFIG_HAVE_EFFICIENT_UNALIGNED_ACCESS, we get
* to this code only in strict mode where we want to emulate
* the NET_IP_ALIGN==2 checking. Therefore use an
* unconditional IP align value of '2'.
*/
ip_align = 2;
if ((ip_align + reg_off + off) % size != 0) {
verbose("misaligned packet access off %d+%d+%d size %d\n",
ip_align, reg_off, off, size);
......
Markdown is supported
0%
or
You are about to add 0 people to the discussion. Proceed with caution.
Finish editing this message first!
Please register or to comment