@@ -28,22 +28,20 @@ static void nft_range_eval(const struct nft_expr *expr,
const struct nft_pktinfo *pkt)
{
const struct nft_range_expr *priv = nft_expr_priv(expr);
- bool mismatch;
int d1, d2;
d1 = memcmp(®s->data[priv->sreg], &priv->data_from, priv->len);
d2 = memcmp(®s->data[priv->sreg], &priv->data_to, priv->len);
switch (priv->op) {
case NFT_RANGE_EQ:
- mismatch = (d1 < 0 || d2 > 0);
+ if (d1 < 0 || d2 > 0)
+ regs->verdict.code = NFT_BREAK;
break;
case NFT_RANGE_NEQ:
- mismatch = (d1 >= 0 && d2 <= 0);
+ if (d1 >= 0 && d2 <= 0)
+ regs->verdict.code = NFT_BREAK;
break;
}
-
- if (mismatch)
- regs->verdict.code = NFT_BREAK;
}
static const struct nla_policy nft_range_policy[NFTA_RANGE_MAX + 1] = {
The newly added nft_range_eval() function handles the two possible nft range operations, but as the compiler warning points out, any unexpected value would lead to the 'mismatch' variable being used without being initialized: net/netfilter/nft_range.c: In function 'nft_range_eval': net/netfilter/nft_range.c:45:5: error: 'mismatch' may be used uninitialized in this function [-Werror=maybe-uninitialized] This removes the variable in question and instead moves the condition into the switch itself, which is potentially more efficient than adding a bogus 'default' clause as in my first approach, and is nicer than using the 'uninitialized_var' macro. Fixes: 0f3cd9b36977 ("netfilter: nf_tables: add range expression") Link: http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/677114/ Signed-off-by: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de> --- net/netfilter/nft_range.c | 10 ++++------ 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-) Cc: Pablo Neira Ayuso <pablo@netfilter.org> -- 2.9.0