netdev - Re: [PATCH] net: wireless: rtlwifi: rtl8192de: hw.c: Cleaning up conjunction always evaluates to false

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Sun, 8 Jun 2014 12:36:11 +0200
From:	Rickard Strandqvist <rickard_strandqvist@...ctrumdigital.se>
To:	Peter Wu <peter@...ensteyn.nl>
Cc:	Larry Finger <Larry.Finger@...inger.net>,
	Chaoming Li <chaoming_li@...lsil.com.cn>,
	"John W. Linville" <linville@...driver.com>,
	linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org,
	Network Development <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] net: wireless: rtlwifi: rtl8192de: hw.c: Cleaning up
 conjunction always evaluates to false

Hi

Damn, there I was bit too fast :-(

Then we use MSR_MASK instead, new patch then. But I will wait a day?
Or what is long enough to be sure that nobody else have any
objections? How is this usually resolved?

Sure, I can send a patch for all the files instead. However, earlier
received complaints when I sent patches extending over more than one
file.

I'll check again how the cover letter works. Although when I try with
my send patch mail script it did not work as I wanted.


Best regards
Rickard Strandqvist


2014-06-08 11:26 GMT+02:00 Peter Wu <peter@...ensteyn.nl>:
> On Saturday 07 June 2014 19:01:20 Larry Finger wrote:
>> As you have learned here, automatically making changes suggested by some tool
>> may convert a visible bug into one that is invisible, and only found by a
>> detailed line-by-line examination of the code, and that is unlikely to happen.
>> Please be careful.
>>
>>  From everything I see, the test in all drivers should be
>>
>>         if ((bt_msr & MSR_AP) == MSR_AP)
>
> That only happens to be case because MSR_INFRA | MSR_ADHOC == MSR_AP. This
> seems to be the intent:
>
>     #define MSR_MASK 0x03
>     if ((bt_msr & MSR_MASK) == MSR_AP)
>
> In rtl8192se, there are also MSR_LINK_... constants covering MSR_...
> and in addition, there is a MSR_LINK_MASK. These macros are quite
> redundant though given the other definitions, but the mask is still
> nice to have I guess.
>
> Also, personally I would submit just one patch touching all drivers, but
> I see that Rickard has submitted a bunch of patches (without cover letter
> either, making it more difficult to group them). What would you prefer,
> a single patch touching multiple drivers (as the changes are mostly the
> same) or split patches?
>
> Kind regards,
> Peter
>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html