linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] staging: wilc1000: Merge memcpy + le32_to_cpus to get_unaligned

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-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Fri, 19 Jul 2019 17:04:29 +0300
From:   Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com>
To:     Ajay.Kathat@...rochip.com
Cc:     devel@...verdev.osuosl.org, linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org,
        gregkh@...uxfoundation.org, hslester96@...il.com,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Adham.Abozaeid@...rochip.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] staging: wilc1000: Merge memcpy + le32_to_cpus to
 get_unaligned_le32

On Fri, Jul 19, 2019 at 05:01:33PM +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 19, 2019 at 12:05:07PM +0000, Ajay.Kathat@...rochip.com wrote:
> > 
> > On 7/19/2019 5:16 PM, Chuhong Yuan wrote:
> > > 
> > > <Ajay.Kathat@...rochip.com> 于2019年7月19日周五 下午7:34写道：
> > >>
> > >> On 7/19/2019 1:40 PM, Chuhong Yuan wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>> Merge the combo use of memcpy and le32_to_cpus.
> > >>> Use get_unaligned_le32 instead.
> > >>> This simplifies the code.
> > >>>
> > >>> Signed-off-by: Chuhong Yuan <hslester96@...il.com>
> > >>> ---
> > >>>  drivers/staging/wilc1000/wilc_wfi_cfgoperations.c | 3 +--
> > >>>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 2 deletions(-)
> > >>>
> > >>> diff --git a/drivers/staging/wilc1000/wilc_wfi_cfgoperations.c b/drivers/staging/wilc1000/wilc_wfi_cfgoperations.c
> > >>> index d72fdd333050..12fb4add05ec 100644
> > >>> --- a/drivers/staging/wilc1000/wilc_wfi_cfgoperations.c
> > >>> +++ b/drivers/staging/wilc1000/wilc_wfi_cfgoperations.c
> > >>> @@ -1038,8 +1038,7 @@ void wilc_wfi_p2p_rx(struct wilc_vif *vif, u8 *buff, u32 size)
> > >>>       s32 freq;
> > >>>       __le16 fc;
> > >>>
> > >>> -     memcpy(&header, (buff - HOST_HDR_OFFSET), HOST_HDR_OFFSET);
> > >>> -     le32_to_cpus(&header);
> > >>> +     header = get_unaligned_le32(buff - HOST_HDR_OFFSET);
> > >>>       pkt_offset = GET_PKT_OFFSET(header);
> > >>>
> > >>>       if (pkt_offset & IS_MANAGMEMENT_CALLBACK) {
> > >>>
> > >>
> > >> Thanks for sending the patches.
> > >>
> > >> The code change looks okay to me. Just a minor comment, avoid the use of
> > >> same subject line for different patches.
> > > 
> > > These two patches are in the same subsystem and solve the same problem.
> > > I splitted them into two patches by mistake since I did not notice the problems
> > > in the second patch when I sent the first one.
> > > Should I merge the two patches and resend?
> > > 
> > 
> > Yes, please go ahead, merge the patches and send the updated version.
> > 
> 
> This is wrong advice.  Don't merge the patches because they are for
> different drivers.  The original subjects are fine because the
> subsystems are different so that's okay.
> 

Oh...  My bad...  I was looking at the wrong patches.  :P  You are
100% correct Ajay.  Merge the two patches and always make sure to not
send multiple patches with the same subject.

regards,
dan carpenter