[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <7fc849f7-c178-d13e-e9cf-d107a9f73c61@m4x.org>
Date: Tue, 23 Aug 2016 11:30:12 +0200
From: Nicolas Iooss <nicolas.iooss_linux@....org>
To: Arend Van Spriel <arend.vanspriel@...adcom.com>,
Franky Lin <franky.lin@...adcom.com>,
Hante Meuleman <hante.meuleman@...adcom.com>,
linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org, brcm80211-dev-list.pdl@...adcom.com
Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] brcmfmac: fix pmksa->bssid usage
On 22/08/16 21:38, Arend Van Spriel wrote:
> On 22-8-2016 15:03, Nicolas Iooss wrote:
>> On 05/08/16 22:34, Nicolas Iooss wrote:
[...]
>>> Fixes: 6c404f34f2bd ("brcmfmac: Cleanup pmksa cache handling code")
>>> Cc: stable@....kernel.org
>
> Ah, so you did something wrong after all :-p. The email address should
> be 'stable@...r.kernel.org'.
Thanks for spotting this! I'll fix this address.
>>> Signed-off-by: Nicolas Iooss <nicolas.iooss_linux@....org>
>>> ---
>>>
>>> scripts/checkpatch.pl reports a warning: "Prefer ether_addr_equal() or
>>> ether_addr_equal_unaligned() over memcmp()". Because some files in
>>> drivers/net/wireless/broadcom/brcm80211/brcmfmac/ still use memcmp()
>>> to compare addresses and because I do not know whether pmksa->bssid is
>>> always aligned, I did not follow this warning.
>
> As most of this is done in slow path, I prefer memcmp() as I do not want
> to check alignment for minimal performance gain.
OK.
>>> drivers/net/wireless/broadcom/brcm80211/brcmfmac/cfg80211.c | 4 ++--
>>> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/drivers/net/wireless/broadcom/brcm80211/brcmfmac/cfg80211.c b/drivers/net/wireless/broadcom/brcm80211/brcmfmac/cfg80211.c
>>> index 2628d5e12c64..aceab77cd95a 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/net/wireless/broadcom/brcm80211/brcmfmac/cfg80211.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/net/wireless/broadcom/brcm80211/brcmfmac/cfg80211.c
>>> @@ -3884,11 +3884,11 @@ brcmf_cfg80211_del_pmksa(struct wiphy *wiphy, struct net_device *ndev,
>>> if (!check_vif_up(ifp->vif))
>>> return -EIO;
>>>
>>> - brcmf_dbg(CONN, "del_pmksa - PMK bssid = %pM\n", &pmksa->bssid);
>>> + brcmf_dbg(CONN, "del_pmksa - PMK bssid = %pM\n", pmksa->bssid);
>>>
>>> npmk = le32_to_cpu(cfg->pmk_list.npmk);
>>> for (i = 0; i < npmk; i++)
>>> - if (!memcmp(&pmksa->bssid, &pmk[i].bssid, ETH_ALEN))
>>> + if (!memcmp(pmksa->bssid, &pmk[i].bssid, ETH_ALEN))
>
> I find '&pmk[i].bssid' confusing so maybe you could change it to
> '&pmk[i].bssid[0]' or 'pmk[i].bssid' as I think these two are
> essentially the same.
I agree the three ways of writing this share the same meaning. I'll send
a v2 with 'pmk[i].bssid'.
>
> Regards,
> Arend
Thanks for your review!
Nicolas
Powered by blists - more mailing lists