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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <20180405012540.GA24241@embeddedor.com> Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2018 20:25:40 -0500 From: "Gustavo A. R. Silva" <gustavo@...eddedor.com> To: Yan-Hsuan Chuang <yhchuang@...ltek.com>, Ping-Ke Shih <pkshih@...ltek.com>, Kalle Valo <kvalo@...eaurora.org> Cc: linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, "Gustavo A. R. Silva" <gustavo@...eddedor.com> Subject: [rtlwifi-btcoex] Suspicious code in halbtc8821a1ant driver Hi all, While doing some static analysis I came across the following piece of code at drivers/net/wireless/realtek/rtlwifi/btcoexist/halbtc8821a1ant.c:1581: 1581 static void btc8821a1ant_act_bt_sco_hid_only_busy(struct btc_coexist *btcoexist, 1582 u8 wifi_status) 1583 { 1584 /* tdma and coex table */ 1585 btc8821a1ant_ps_tdma(btcoexist, NORMAL_EXEC, true, 5); 1586 1587 if (BT_8821A_1ANT_WIFI_STATUS_NON_CONNECTED_ASSO_AUTH_SCAN == 1588 wifi_status) 1589 btc8821a1ant_coex_table_with_type(btcoexist, NORMAL_EXEC, 1); 1590 else 1591 btc8821a1ant_coex_table_with_type(btcoexist, NORMAL_EXEC, 1); 1592 } The issue here is that the code for both branches of the if-else statement is identical. The if-else was introduced a year ago in this commit c6821613e653 I wonder if an argument should be changed in any of the calls to btc8821a1ant_coex_table_with_type? What do you think? Thanks -- Gustavo
Powered by blists - more mailing lists