linux-kernel - Re: [Outreachy kernel] Re: [PATCH v1 1/5] staging: wfx: fix warnings of no space is necessary

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:   Sun, 20 Oct 2019 21:29:02 +0200 (CEST)
From:   Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@...6.fr>
To:     Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com>
cc:     Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>, Jules Irenge <jbi.octave@...il.com>,
        devel@...verdev.osuosl.org, outreachy-kernel@...glegroups.com,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, gregkh@...uxfoundation.org
Subject: Re: [Outreachy kernel] Re: [PATCH v1 1/5] staging: wfx: fix warnings
 of no space is necessary



On Sun, 20 Oct 2019, Dan Carpenter wrote:

> On Sat, Oct 19, 2019 at 01:02:31PM -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
> > diff -u -p a/rtl8723bs/core/rtw_mlme_ext.c b/rtl8723bs/core/rtw_mlme_ext.c
> > --- a/rtl8723bs/core/rtw_mlme_ext.c
> > +++ b/rtl8723bs/core/rtw_mlme_ext.c
> > @@ -1132,7 +1132,7 @@ unsigned int OnAuthClient(struct adapter
> >  				goto authclnt_fail;
> >  			}
> >
> > -			memcpy((void *)(pmlmeinfo->chg_txt), (void *)(p + 2), len);
> > +			memcpy((void *)(pmlmeinfo->chg_txt), (p + 2), len);
>
> I wonder why it didn't remove the first void cast?

If "it" is a semantic patch, it is probably because Coccinelle wasn't able
to find the definition of the type of pmlmeinfo.  By default, Coccinelle
only consults a few header files (ones with the same names as the .c file
or ones included with "" and located in the same directory).

>
> [ The rest of the email is bonus comments for outreachy developers ].
>
> And someone needs to check the final patch probably to remove the extra
> parentheses around "(p + 2)".  Those were necessary when for the cast
> but not required after the cast is gone.

The rule could have contained

- (void *)(e)
+ e

That should also match cases with no parentheses.  I think there is even
something to put the parentheses back if they are needed, but overall the
final patch should be checked carefully in any case.

julia

>
> >  			pmlmeinfo->auth_seq = 3;
> >  			issue_auth(padapter, NULL, 0);
> >  			set_link_timer(pmlmeext, REAUTH_TO);
>
> It's sort of tricky to know what "one thing per patch means".
>
> -       memset((void *)(&(pHTInfo->SelfHTCap)), 0,
> +       memset((&(pHTInfo->SelfHTCap)), 0,
>                 sizeof(pHTInfo->SelfHTCap));
>
> Here the parentheses were never related to the cast so we should leave
> them as is.  In other words, in the first example, if we didn't remove
> the cast that would be "half a thing per patch" and in the second
> example that would be "two things in one patch".
>
> regards,
> dan carpenter
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "outreachy-kernel" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to outreachy-kernel+unsubscribe@...glegroups.com.
> To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/outreachy-kernel/20191020191759.GJ24678%40kadam.
>