linux-kernel - Re: [Outreachy kernel] [PATCH] :staging: rtl8723bs: Remove useless led_blink

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: <alpine.DEB.2.22.394.2104132056470.14108@hadrien>
Date:   Tue, 13 Apr 2021 20:57:20 +0200 (CEST)
From:   Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@...ia.fr>
To:     "Fabio M. De Francesco" <fmdefrancesco@...il.com>
cc:     Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com>,
        outreachy-kernel@...glegroups.com,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        linux-staging@...ts.linux.dev, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [Outreachy kernel] [PATCH] :staging: rtl8723bs: Remove useless
 led_blink_hdl()



On Tue, 13 Apr 2021, Fabio M. De Francesco wrote:

> On Tuesday, April 13, 2021 8:20:50 PM CEST Dan Carpenter wrote:
> > On Tue, Apr 13, 2021 at 06:47:06PM +0200, Fabio M. De Francesco wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, April 13, 2021 6:27:17 PM CEST Julia Lawall wrote:
> > > > On Tue, 13 Apr 2021, Fabio M. De Francesco wrote:
> > > > > On Tuesday, April 13, 2021 6:04:16 PM CEST Julia Lawall wrote:
> > > > > > On Tue, 13 Apr 2021, Fabio M. De Francesco wrote:
> > > > > > > Removed the led_blink_hdl() function (declaration, definition,
> > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > caller code) because it's useless. It only seems to check
> > > > > > > whether
> > > > > > > or
> > > > > > > not a given pointer is NULL. There are other (simpler) means
> > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > purpose.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Fabio M. De Francesco <fmdefrancesco@...il.com>
> > > > > > > ---
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >  drivers/staging/rtl8723bs/core/rtw_cmd.c         | 1 -
> > > > > > >  drivers/staging/rtl8723bs/core/rtw_mlme_ext.c    | 9 ---------
> > > > > > >  drivers/staging/rtl8723bs/include/rtw_mlme_ext.h | 1 -
> > > > > > >  3 files changed, 11 deletions(-)
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > diff --git a/drivers/staging/rtl8723bs/core/rtw_cmd.c
> > > > > > > b/drivers/staging/rtl8723bs/core/rtw_cmd.c index
> > > > > > > 0297fbad7bce..4c44dfd21514 100644
> > > > > > > --- a/drivers/staging/rtl8723bs/core/rtw_cmd.c
> > > > > > > +++ b/drivers/staging/rtl8723bs/core/rtw_cmd.c
> > > > > > > @@ -150,7 +150,6 @@ static struct cmd_hdl wlancmds[] = {
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >  	GEN_MLME_EXT_HANDLER(0, h2c_msg_hdl) /*58*/
> > > > > > >  	GEN_MLME_EXT_HANDLER(sizeof(struct SetChannelPlan_param),
> > > > > > >  	set_chplan_hdl) /*59*/>
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > -	GEN_MLME_EXT_HANDLER(sizeof(struct LedBlink_param),
> > > > >
> > > > > led_blink_hdl)
> > > > >
> > > > > > > /*60*/
> > > > > >
> > > > > > This is worrisome.  Doyou fully understand the impact of this?
> > > > > > If
> > > > > > not,
> > > > > > the change is probably not a good idea.
> > > > >
> > > > > This is that macro definition:
> > > > >
> > > > > #define GEN_MLME_EXT_HANDLER(size, cmd) {size, cmd},
> > > > >
> > > > > struct C2HEvent_Header {
> > > > >
> > > > > #ifdef __LITTLE_ENDIAN
> > > > >
> > > > >         unsigned int len:16;
> > > > >         unsigned int ID:8;
> > > > >         unsigned int seq:8;
> > > > >
> > > > > #else
> > > > >
> > > > >         unsigned int seq:8;
> > > > >         unsigned int ID:8;
> > > > >         unsigned int len:16;
> > > > >
> > > > > #endif
> > > > >
> > > > >         unsigned int rsvd;
> > > > >
> > > > > };
> > > > >
> > > > > It's a bit convoluted with regard to my experience. Probably I
> > > > > don't
> > > > > understand it fully, but it seems to me to not having effects to
> > > > > the
> > > > > code where I removed its use within core/rtw_cmd.c.
> > > > >
> > > > > What am I missing?
> > > >
> > > > It seems that the function is being put into an array.  Probably
> > > > someone
> > > > expects to find it there.  Probably you have shifted all of the
> > > > functions that come afterwards back one slot so that they are all in
> > > > the wrong places.
> > > >
> > > > julia
> > >
> > > Thanks for your explanation. Obviously this implies that the function
> > > cannot be removed, unless one fill the slot that is deleted by to not
> > > calling this macro at the right moment.
> > >
> > > I also suppose that providing a function pointer with a NULL value
> > > wouldn't work either.
> >
> > It would work.  That array is full of NULL function pointers.
> >
> Interesting, thanks.
>
> I'm going to remove that function and replace its name in the macro with a
> NULL function pointer.
>
> I couldn't believe it would work when I wrote about that.

Have you checked that a value of NULL in that place is going to have the
same effect as the function?

julia