netdev - Re: [rtlwifi-btcoex] Suspicious code in halbtc8821a1ant driver

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Thu, 5 Apr 2018 02:06:56 +0000
From:   Pkshih <pkshih@...ltek.com>
To:     莊彥宣 <yhchuang@...ltek.com>,
        "kvalo@...eaurora.org" <kvalo@...eaurora.org>,
        "gustavo@...eddedor.com" <gustavo@...eddedor.com>
CC:     "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: [rtlwifi-btcoex] Suspicious code in halbtc8821a1ant driver

On Thu, 2018-04-05 at 01:25 +0000, Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> While doing some static analysis I came across the following piece of code at
> drivers/net/wireless/realtek/rtlwifi/btcoexist/halbtc8821a1ant.c:1581:
> 
> 1581 static void btc8821a1ant_act_bt_sco_hid_only_busy(struct btc_coexist *btcoexist,
> 1582                                                   u8 wifi_status)
> 1583 {
> 1584         /* tdma and coex table */
> 1585         btc8821a1ant_ps_tdma(btcoexist, NORMAL_EXEC, true, 5);
> 1586 
> 1587         if (BT_8821A_1ANT_WIFI_STATUS_NON_CONNECTED_ASSO_AUTH_SCAN ==
> 1588             wifi_status)
> 1589                 btc8821a1ant_coex_table_with_type(btcoexist, NORMAL_EXEC, 1);
> 1590         else
> 1591                 btc8821a1ant_coex_table_with_type(btcoexist, NORMAL_EXEC, 1);
> 1592 }
> 
> The issue here is that the code for both branches of the if-else statement is identical.
> 
> The if-else was introduced a year ago in this commit c6821613e653
> 
> I wonder if an argument should be changed in any of the calls to
> btc8821a1ant_coex_table_with_type?
> 
> 

It looks weird. Since we're in spring vacation, I'll check my colleague next Monday.

PK