linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] staging: wilc1000: replace redundant computations with 0

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]

Message-ID: <20171023121907.phgo4ch5ygms2uja@mwanda>
Date:   Mon, 23 Oct 2017 15:19:07 +0300
From:   Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com>
To:     Colin King <colin.king@...onical.com>
Cc:     Aditya Shankar <aditya.shankar@...rochip.com>,
        Ganesh Krishna <ganesh.krishna@...rochip.com>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org, devel@...verdev.osuosl.org,
        kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] staging: wilc1000: replace redundant computations with 0


On Tue, Oct 10, 2017 at 03:05:48PM +0100, Colin King wrote:
> From: Colin Ian King <colin.king@...onical.com>
> 
> Shifting and masking strHostIfSetMulti->enabled is redundant since
> enabled is a bool and so all the shifted and masked values will be
> zero. Replace them with zero to simplify the code.
> 
> Detected by CoverityScan, CID#1339458 ("Bad shift operation") and
> CID#1339506 ("Operands don't affect result").
> 
> Signed-off-by: Colin Ian King <colin.king@...onical.com>
> ---
>  drivers/staging/wilc1000/host_interface.c | 6 +++---
>  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/staging/wilc1000/host_interface.c b/drivers/staging/wilc1000/host_interface.c
> index 7b620658ec38..94477dd08c85 100644
> --- a/drivers/staging/wilc1000/host_interface.c
> +++ b/drivers/staging/wilc1000/host_interface.c
> @@ -2417,9 +2417,9 @@ static void Handle_SetMulticastFilter(struct wilc_vif *vif,
>  
>  	pu8CurrByte = wid.val;
>  	*pu8CurrByte++ = (strHostIfSetMulti->enabled & 0xFF);
> -	*pu8CurrByte++ = ((strHostIfSetMulti->enabled >> 8) & 0xFF);
> -	*pu8CurrByte++ = ((strHostIfSetMulti->enabled >> 16) & 0xFF);
> -	*pu8CurrByte++ = ((strHostIfSetMulti->enabled >> 24) & 0xFF);
> +	*pu8CurrByte++ = 0;
> +	*pu8CurrByte++ = 0;
> +	*pu8CurrByte++ = 0;

This is harder to understand now.  I would be better to solve this by
declaring a struct with the right format and using cpu_to_be32().

regards,
dan carpenter