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]

Date:   Fri, 19 Jul 2019 19:46:32 +0800
From:   Chuhong Yuan <hslester96@...il.com>
To:     Ajay Singh <Ajay.Kathat@...rochip.com>
Cc:     Adham Abozaeid <Adham.Abozaeid@...rochip.com>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <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

<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?

>
> Regards,
> Ajay