Bug 137648

Summary: RHEL4 PATCH dev.c: clear SIOCGIFHWADDR buffer if !dev->addr_len
Product: Red Hat Enterprise Linux 4 Reporter: Matt Domsch <matt_domsch>
Component: kernelAssignee: John W. Linville <linville>
Status: CLOSED RAWHIDE QA Contact: Brian Brock <bbrock>
Severity: medium Docs Contact:
Priority: medium    
Version: 4.0CC: davej, us_linux_engineering
Target Milestone: ---   
Target Release: ---   
Hardware: All   
OS: Linux   
Whiteboard:
Fixed In Version: Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of: Environment:
Last Closed: 2004-11-24 00:13:09 UTC Type: ---
Regression: --- Mount Type: ---
Documentation: --- CRM:
Verified Versions: Category: ---
oVirt Team: --- RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team: --- Target Upstream Version:
Embargoed:
Bug Depends On:    
Bug Blocks: 135876    
Attachments:
Description Flags
net-core-dev.c.patch
none
net-core-dev.c-2.6.patch none

Description Matt Domsch 2004-10-29 21:52:27 UTC 
Description of problem:
From: Matt Domsch <Matt_Domsch>
To: netdev.com

If dev->dev_addr is zero, then the memcpy() never takes place, and the
same data that was in the caller's buffer is still in the caller's
buffer on successful return.  The caller can't know that the data in
its buffer isn't the right answer.  So, if dev->dev_dev_addr == 0,
clear the buffer before returning success.

Thanks,
Matt


Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable):
2.6.9-rc1 and earlier 2.6 variants
Comment 1 Matt Domsch 2004-10-29 21:53:38 UTC 
Created attachment 105967 [details]
net-core-dev.c.patch

Patch as submitted to netdev.com for 2.6
Comment 3 Matt Domsch 2004-11-01 21:43:33 UTC 
Created attachment 106049 [details]
net-core-dev.c-2.6.patch

Updated patch based on discussion on netdev.com.
For RHEL4, Red Hat may wish not to include the printk, as there are ~30
applications which will cause that printk to trigger, none of which is really
broken.
Comment 6 Dave Jones 2004-11-04 20:48:53 UTC 
fixed in cvs
Comment 7 Matt Domsch 2004-11-10 20:37:00 UTC 
FWIW, DaveM applied the first of my patches, not the latter one.  
Which got applied to CVS please?
Comment 8 Dave Jones 2004-11-12 00:37:10 UTC 
the one from commment #3 (minus the printk)
Comment 9 Amit Bhutani 2004-11-24 00:13:09 UTC 
Verified, patch from #3 minus the printk statement included in kernel 
2.6.9-1.751_EL. Spoke to Matt and he stated that he didn't care much 
for the printk statement in the first place. Closing the issue as 
this patch meets our needs.