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

Message-ID: <8c14743d-efe1-3e3a-0419-bde22f848751@microchip.com>
Date:   Fri, 19 Jul 2019 11:34:17 +0000
From:   <Ajay.Kathat@...rochip.com>
To:     <hslester96@...il.com>
CC:     <Adham.Abozaeid@...rochip.com>, <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        <linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org>, <devel@...verdev.osuosl.org>,
        <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] staging: wilc1000: Merge memcpy + le32_to_cpus to
 get_unaligned_le32

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.

Regards,
Ajay