On Tue, Sep 06, 2016 at 10:52:43AM -0700, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> > > @@ -126,8 +126,10 @@ static int ping_v6_sendmsg(struct sock *sk, struct
> > > msghdr *msg, size_t len)
> > > rt = (struct rt6_info *) dst;
> > >
> > > np = inet6_sk(sk);
> > > - if (!np)
> > > - return -EBADF;
> > > + if (!np) {
> > > + err = -EBADF;
> > > + goto dst_err_out;
> > > + }
> > >
> > > if (!fl6.flowi6_oif && ipv6_addr_is_multicast(&fl6.daddr))
> > > fl6.flowi6_oif = np->mcast_oif;
> > > @@ -163,6 +165,9 @@ static int ping_v6_sendmsg(struct sock *sk, struct
> > > msghdr *msg, size_t len)
> > > }
> > > release_sock(sk);
> > >
> > > +dst_err_out:
> > > + dst_release(dst);
> > > +
> > > if (err)
> > > return err;
> > >
> >
> > Acked-by: Martin KaFai Lau <ka...@fb.com>
>
> This really does not make sense to me.
>
> If np was NULL, we should have a crash before.
In the case where I was seeing the traces, we were taking the 'success'
path through the function, so sk was non-null.
> So we should remove this test, since it is absolutely useless.
Looking closer, it seems the assignment of np is duplicated also,
so that can also go. This is orthogonal to the dst leak though.
I'll submit a follow-up cleaning that up.
Dave
