linux-kernel - AW: [PATCH] staging: rtl8723bs: core: remove redundant zero'ing of counter variable k

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:   Mon, 24 Feb 2020 11:36:13 +0000
From:   Walter Harms <wharms@....de>
To:     Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com>
CC:     Colin King <colin.king@...onical.com>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        "devel@...verdev.osuosl.org" <devel@...verdev.osuosl.org>,
        "kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org" <kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: AW: [PATCH] staging: rtl8723bs: core: remove redundant zero'ing of
 counter variable k


________________________________________
Von: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com>
Gesendet: Montag, 24. Februar 2020 12:27
An: Walter Harms
Cc: Colin King; Greg Kroah-Hartman; devel@...verdev.osuosl.org; kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org; linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Betreff: Re: [PATCH] staging: rtl8723bs: core: remove redundant zero'ing of counter variable k

On Mon, Feb 24, 2020 at 11:07:55AM +0000, Walter Harms wrote:
> diff --git a/drivers/staging/rtl8723bs/core/rtw_efuse.c b/drivers/staging/rtl8723bs/core/rtw_efuse.c
> index 3b8848182221..bdb6ff8aab7d 100644
> --- a/drivers/staging/rtl8723bs/core/rtw_efuse.c
> +++ b/drivers/staging/rtl8723bs/core/rtw_efuse.c
> @@ -244,10 +244,8 @@ u16        Address)
>                 while (!(Bytetemp & 0x80)) {
>                         Bytetemp = rtw_read8(Adapter, EFUSE_CTRL+3);
>                         k++;
> -                       if (k == 1000) {
> -                               k = 0;
> +                       if (k == 1000)
>                                 break;
> -                       }
>
> IMHO this is confusing to read, i suggest:
>
>  for(k=0;k<1000;k++) {
>       Bytetemp = rtw_read8(Adapter, EFUSE_CTRL+3);
>       if ( Bytetemp & 0x80 )
>                break;
>       }
>

The problem with the original code is that the variable is named "k"
instead of "retry".  It should be:

        do {
                Bytetemp = rtw_read8(Adapter, EFUSE_CTRL+3);
        } while (!(Bytetemp & 0x80)) && ++retry < 1000);

good point,
personally i try to avoid putting to much into braces, so i
would go for the additional if() but this is for the maintainer.


>  NTL is am wondering what will happen if k==1000
>  and Bytetemp is still invalid. Will rtw_read8() fail or
>  simply return invalid data ?

Yeah.  That was my thought reviewing this patch as well.

It should probably return 0xff on failure.

        if (retry >= 1000)
                return 0xff;

looks nice,

re,
 wh
regards,
dan carpenter