linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 05/13] staging:rtl8192u: Remove AdvCoding and GreenField

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Fri, 28 Sep 2018 23:38:52 +0100
From:   John Whitmore <arigead@...il.com>
To:     Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Cc:     John Whitmore <johnfwhitmore@...il.com>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, devel@...verdev.osuosl.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 05/13] staging:rtl8192u: Remove AdvCoding and GreenField
 - Style

On Fri, Sep 28, 2018 at 02:35:50PM +0200, Greg KH wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 26, 2018 at 08:16:56PM +0100, John Whitmore wrote:
> > The member variables AdvCoding and GreenField are unused in code so
> > have been removed from the structure and associated initialisation
> > function.
> > 
> > This is a coding style change which should have no impact on runtime
> > code execution.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: John Whitmore <johnfwhitmore@...il.com>
> > ---
> >  drivers/staging/rtl8192u/ieee80211/rtl819x_HT.h     | 2 --
> >  drivers/staging/rtl8192u/ieee80211/rtl819x_HTProc.c | 2 --
> >  2 files changed, 4 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/drivers/staging/rtl8192u/ieee80211/rtl819x_HT.h b/drivers/staging/rtl8192u/ieee80211/rtl819x_HT.h
> > index 64d5359cf7e2..83fb8f34ccbd 100644
> > --- a/drivers/staging/rtl8192u/ieee80211/rtl819x_HT.h
> > +++ b/drivers/staging/rtl8192u/ieee80211/rtl819x_HT.h
> > @@ -39,10 +39,8 @@ enum ht_extension_chan_offset {
> >  
> >  struct ht_capability_ele {
> >  	//HT capability info
> > -	u8	AdvCoding:1;
> >  	u8	ChlWidth:1;
> >  	u8	MimoPwrSave:2;
> > -	u8	GreenField:1;
> 
> Don't these fields come from the hardware itself?  By removing them
> here, you just changed the memory layout of the structure.  Does the
> driver still work properly after this?  If you can't test it, I can't
> take this patch as it's too risky...
> 

Sorry, yes the structure looks like it should come from the hardware
but as the structure is allocated from memory I expected to find a
memcopy either to or from the hardware. Yes risky, just because I
couldn't find it don't mean the connection to hardware ain't there.

I'll lay off the risky and who knows if I keep wondering through the
driver I'll find that illusive connection.