linux-kernel - Re: [GIT PULL] UWB, WUSB, and WLP subsystems for 2.6.28

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, 14 Oct 2008 13:02:51 -0700
From:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	David Vrabel <david.vrabel@....com>
Cc:	torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] UWB, WUSB, and WLP subsystems for 2.6.28

> On Fri, 10 Oct 2008 13:08:28 +0100 David Vrabel <david.vrabel@....com> wrote:
> Please pull the new UWB, WUSB and WLP subsystems from
> 
> git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/dvrabel/uwb.git for-upstream

didn't happen?

What is the review status of this work?  I don't remember seeing it on any
of the lists where I lurk - perhaps a full resend will help things along.

<quick scan>

Code looks reasonable.

It has lots of comments which start with /**, which is the
this-is-kerneldoc token.  Only they're not kerneldoc comments.  These
should all be converted to kerneldoc, or replace the /** with /*.

uwb_beca_purge() should use time_after() or time_before().

In uwb_bce_print_IEs(), the cast of
uwb_rc_evt_beacon_WUSB_0100.BeaconInfo[] into a struct uwb_rc_evt_beacon*
looks really worrisome from an alignment POV.  Can it result in misaligned
accesses on architectures which don't like that?  (ia64, alpha, ...)

Code does kzalloc(a * b, ..) in some places.  kcalloc() is preferred, so
readers don't have to worry whether the code is vulnerable to
multiplicative overflows.

The code has a random mixture of
zero-lines-between-end-of-locals-and-start-of-code and
one-line-between-end-of-locals-and-start-of-code (and two line).  The
latter is usually preferred.

The person who misnamed DEFINE_BITMAP as DECLARE_BITMAP instead gets a
wedgie.

It seems strange that uwb_drp_ie_update(UWB_RSV_STATE_NONE) will free
rsv->drp_ie then reallocate it.

printk_ratelimit() is a bit silly because it shares state with other
unrelated subsystems which might be using it.  Direct use of __ratelimit()
would be better.

All minor stuff - I didn't spend long looking...
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/