linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] mwifiex: Use put_unaligned

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]

Message-ID: <87zi963s1p.fsf@codeaurora.org>
Date:   Thu, 05 Oct 2017 11:41:38 +0300
From:   Kalle Valo <kvalo@...eaurora.org>
To:     Himanshu Jha <himanshujha199640@...il.com>
Cc:     amitkarwar@...il.com, nishants@...vell.com, gbhat@...vell.com,
        huxm@...vell.com, linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org,
        netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mwifiex: Use put_unaligned_le32

Himanshu Jha <himanshujha199640@...il.com> writes:

>> > --- a/drivers/net/wireless/marvell/mwifiex/cmdevt.c
>> > +++ b/drivers/net/wireless/marvell/mwifiex/cmdevt.c
>> > @@ -17,6 +17,7 @@
>> >   * this warranty disclaimer.
>> >   */
>> >  
>> > +#include <linux/unaligned/access_ok.h>
>> 
>> I don't think this is correct. Should it be asm/unaligned.h?
>
> Would mind explainig me as to why it is incorrect! Also, it defined in
> both the header files but, why is asm/unaligned.h preferred ?

asm/unaligned.h seems to be the toplevel header file which includes
header files based on arch configuration. Also grepping the sources
support that, nobody from drivers/ include access_ok.h directly.

But I can't say that I fully understand how the header files work so
please do correct me if I have mistaken.

-- 
Kalle Valo