linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] staging: r8188eu: refactor rtw_is_cckrates{only}

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:   Tue, 17 Aug 2021 20:49:46 +0200
From:   Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To:     Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
Cc:     Michael Straube <straube.linux@...il.com>,
        Larry.Finger@...inger.net, phil@...lpotter.co.uk, martin@...ser.cx,
        fmdefrancesco@...il.com, linux-staging@...ts.linux.dev,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] staging: r8188eu: refactor
 rtw_is_cckrates{only}_included()

On Tue, Aug 17, 2021 at 11:36:09AM -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
> On Tue, 2021-08-17 at 19:57 +0200, Greg KH wrote:
> > On Mon, Aug 16, 2021 at 09:31:25PM +0200, Michael Straube wrote:
> > > Refactor functions rtw_is_cckrates_included() and
> > > rtw_is_cckratesonly_included(). Add new helper function rtw_is_cckrate()
> > > that allows to make the code more compact. Improves readability and
> > > slightly reduces object file size. Change the return type to bool to
> > > reflect that the functions return boolean values.
> []
> > > diff --git a/drivers/staging/r8188eu/core/rtw_ieee80211.c b/drivers/staging/r8188eu/core/rtw_ieee80211.c
> []
> > > +bool rtw_is_cckratesonly_included(u8 *rate)
> > >  {
> > > -	u32 i = 0;
> > > +	u8 r;
> > >  
> > > 
> > > -	while (rate[i] != 0) {
> > > -		if  ((((rate[i]) & 0x7f) != 2) && (((rate[i]) & 0x7f) != 4) &&
> > > -		     (((rate[i]) & 0x7f) != 11)  && (((rate[i]) & 0x7f) != 22))
> > > +	while ((r = *rate++)) {
> > 
> > Ick, no.
> > 
> > While it might be fun to play with pointers like this, trying to
> > determine the precidence issues involved with reading from, and then
> > incrementing the pointer like this is crazy.
> > 
> > The original was obvious as to how it was walking through the array.
> 
> It's sad to believe *ptr++ is not obvious to you as it's very commonly
> used in the kernel sources (over 10,000 instances).

There's lots of sad things in life :(