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: <1522894016.1824.2.camel@realtek.com> Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2018 02:06:56 +0000 From: Pkshih <pkshih@...ltek.com> To: 莊彥宣 <yhchuang@...ltek.com>, "kvalo@...eaurora.org" <kvalo@...eaurora.org>, "gustavo@...eddedor.com" <gustavo@...eddedor.com> CC: "linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org" <linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org>, "netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org> Subject: Re: [rtlwifi-btcoex] Suspicious code in halbtc8821a1ant driver On Thu, 2018-04-05 at 01:25 +0000, Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote: > 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? > > It looks weird. Since we're in spring vacation, I'll check my colleague next Monday. PK
Powered by blists - more mailing lists