In br_fill_forward_path(), f->dst is checked not to be NULL, then
immediately read using READ_ONCE and checked again. The first check is
useless, so this patch aims to remove the redundant check of f->dst.

Signed-off-by: linke li <lilinke99@qq.com>
---
 net/bridge/br_device.c | 2 +-
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/net/bridge/br_device.c b/net/bridge/br_device.c
index 65cee0ad3c1b..ae33b30ff87c 100644
--- a/net/bridge/br_device.c
+++ b/net/bridge/br_device.c
@@ -405,7 +405,7 @@ static int br_fill_forward_path(struct net_device_path_ctx *ctx,
 	br_vlan_fill_forward_path_pvid(br, ctx, path);
 
 	f = br_fdb_find_rcu(br, ctx->daddr, path->bridge.vlan_id);
-	if (!f || !f->dst)
+	if (!f)
 		return -1;
 
 	dst = READ_ONCE(f->dst);
-- 
2.39.3 (Apple Git-146)

On 4/23/24 13:53, linke li wrote:
> In br_fill_forward_path(), f->dst is checked not to be NULL, then
> immediately read using READ_ONCE and checked again. The first check is
> useless, so this patch aims to remove the redundant check of f->dst.
> 
> Signed-off-by: linke li <lilinke99@qq.com>
> ---
>   net/bridge/br_device.c | 2 +-
>   1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/net/bridge/br_device.c b/net/bridge/br_device.c
> index 65cee0ad3c1b..ae33b30ff87c 100644
> --- a/net/bridge/br_device.c
> +++ b/net/bridge/br_device.c
> @@ -405,7 +405,7 @@ static int br_fill_forward_path(struct net_device_path_ctx *ctx,
>   	br_vlan_fill_forward_path_pvid(br, ctx, path);
>   
>   	f = br_fdb_find_rcu(br, ctx->daddr, path->bridge.vlan_id);
> -	if (!f || !f->dst)
> +	if (!f)
>   		return -1;
>   
>   	dst = READ_ONCE(f->dst);

This patch should target net-next (PATCH net-next in subject).
Other than that the patch seems fine.

Acked-by: Nikolay Aleksandrov <razor@blackwall.org>

Thanks for your advice! Should I submit another patch with subject
"[PATCH net-next] net: bridge: remove redundant check of f->dst" or
"[PATCH net-next v2] net: bridge: remove redundant check of f->dst"?

On 4/23/24 14:58, linke li wrote:
> Thanks for your advice! Should I submit another patch with subject
> "[PATCH net-next] net: bridge: remove redundant check of f->dst" or
> "[PATCH net-next v2] net: bridge: remove redundant check of f->dst"?
> 

Please don't delete the whole thread, just reply below it and snip any 
unnecessary big chunks if needed. As to your question - maintainers
usually take care of this so re-submission is not necessary but in case
they request a re-submission please wait 24 hours before sending another
version. v2 is expected in the subject, also please add a small 
description of what changed in v2.

Thanks,
  Nik