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-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
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