From: Jiri Pirko <[email protected]> Date: Mon, 25 Dec 2017 09:02:54 +0100
> Mon, Dec 25, 2017 at 08:57:35AM CET, [email protected] wrote: >>From: Ido Schimmel <[email protected]> >> >>When we remove the neighbour associated with a nexthop we should always >>refuse to write the nexthop to the adjacency table. Regardless if it is >>already present in the table or not. >> >>Otherwise, we risk dereferencing the NULL pointer that was set instead >>of the neighbour. >> >>Fixes: a7ff87acd995 ("mlxsw: spectrum_router: Implement next-hop routing") >>Signed-off-by: Ido Schimmel <[email protected]> >>Reported-by: Alexander Petrovskiy <[email protected]> >>Signed-off-by: Jiri Pirko <[email protected]> > > Dave, could you please queue this up for 4.14.y together > with "mlxsw: spectrum: Relax sanity checks during enslavement". Both applied and queued up for -stable.
