netdev - Re: [PATCH] net: wireless: ath: ath9k: remove unnecessary code

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:   Tue, 9 May 2017 11:32:58 +0000
From:   Kalle Valo <kvalo@....qualcomm.com>
To:     "Gustavo A. R. Silva" <garsilva@...eddedor.com>
CC:     ath9k-devel <ath9k-devel@....qualcomm.com>,
        "linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org" <linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org>,
        "netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] net: wireless: ath: ath9k: remove unnecessary code

"Gustavo A. R. Silva" <garsilva@...eddedor.com> writes:

> The name of an array used by itself will always return the array's address.
> So this test will always evaluate as true.
>
> Addresses-Coverity-ID: 1364903
> Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <garsilva@...eddedor.com>
> ---
>  drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath9k/eeprom.c | 2 +-
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath9k/eeprom.c b/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath9k/eeprom.c
> index fb80ec8..5c3bc28 100644
> --- a/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath9k/eeprom.c
> +++ b/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath9k/eeprom.c
> @@ -143,7 +143,7 @@ bool ath9k_hw_nvram_read(struct ath_hw *ah, u32 off, u16 *data)
>  
>  	if (ah->eeprom_blob)
>  		ret = ath9k_hw_nvram_read_firmware(ah->eeprom_blob, off, data);
> -	else if (pdata && !pdata->use_eeprom && pdata->eeprom_data)
> +	else if (pdata && !pdata->use_eeprom)
>  		ret = ath9k_hw_nvram_read_pdata(pdata, off, data);
>  	else
>  		ret = common->bus_ops->eeprom_read(common, off, data);

The patch may very well be valid (didn't check yet) but the commit log
is gibberish for me.

-- 
Kalle Valo