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
| ||
|
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
Powered by blists - more mailing lists