On Tue, Nov 03, 2015 at 10:09:49PM +0100, Alexander Bluhm wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 03, 2015 at 09:40:38PM +0100, Alexandr Nedvedicky wrote:
> > I think the
> > right thing is to use goto _skip; in that branch to avoid 499 et. al.
> > completely.
>
> Yes
>
> > @@ -491,6 +491,7 @@ pfr_set_addrs(struct
On Tue, Nov 03, 2015 at 09:40:38PM +0100, Alexandr Nedvedicky wrote:
> I think the
> right thing is to use goto _skip; in that branch to avoid 499 et. al.
> completely.
Yes
> @@ -491,6 +491,7 @@ pfr_set_addrs(struct pfr_table *tbl, str
> if (pfr_route_kentry(tmpkt, p)) {
>
On Tue, Nov 03, 2015 at 21:40 +0100, Alexandr Nedvedicky wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Patch fixes potential use-after-free in pf_table.c:pfr_set_addrs():
>
> 463 for (i = 0; i < size; i++) {
> ...
> 483 q = pfr_lookup_addr(tmpkt, &ad, 1);
> 484 i
Hello,
Patch fixes potential use-after-free in pf_table.c:pfr_set_addrs():
463 for (i = 0; i < size; i++) {
...
483 q = pfr_lookup_addr(tmpkt, &ad, 1);
484 if (q != NULL) {
485 ad.pfra_fback = PFR_FB_DUPL
