linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/2] staging: vt6656: Refactor the assignment of the phy->signal variable

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: <fcc434e9-9da4-4f24-19cc-bac8fc7166ec@gmail.com>
Date:   Fri, 10 Apr 2020 17:40:52 +0100
From:   Malcolm Priestley <tvboxspy@...il.com>
To:     Oscar Carter <oscar.carter@....com>
Cc:     Forest Bond <forest@...ttletooquiet.net>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Quentin Deslandes <quentin.deslandes@...ev.co.uk>,
        Amir Mahdi Ghorbanian <indigoomega021@...il.com>,
        devel@...verdev.osuosl.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] staging: vt6656: Refactor the assignment of the
 phy->signal variable



On 10/04/2020 16:59, Oscar Carter wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 10, 2020 at 04:37:59PM +0100, Malcolm Priestley wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 10/04/2020 12:28, Oscar Carter wrote:
>>> Create a constant array with the values of the "phy->signal" for every
>>> rate. Remove all "phy->signal" assignments inside the switch statement
>>> and replace these with a single reading from the new vnt_phy_signal
>>> array.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Oscar Carter <oscar.carter@....com>
>>> ---
>>>    drivers/staging/vt6656/baseband.c | 101 +++++++-----------------------
>>>    1 file changed, 21 insertions(+), 80 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/drivers/staging/vt6656/baseband.c b/drivers/staging/vt6656/baseband.c
>>> index a19a563d8bcc..47f93bf6e07b 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/staging/vt6656/baseband.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/staging/vt6656/baseband.c
>>> @@ -115,6 +115,21 @@ static const u16 vnt_frame_time[MAX_RATE] = {
>>>    	10, 20, 55, 110, 24, 36, 48, 72, 96, 144, 192, 216
>>>    };
>>
>> Actually you don't need the second values
> 
> Great.
>>>
>>> +static const u8 vnt_phy_signal[][2] = {
>>> +	{0x00, 0x00},	/* RATE_1M  */
>> The driver would never attempt use preamble at this rate
>> so it's safe to include in with the next 3 rates
Sorry got this wrong the driver is trying to do preamble (short)
at this rate and it is not working.

So don't apply it to RATE_1M rate.

Regards

Malcolm