[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <71935a08-e9d3-5f9e-5b9a-7847bd38b756@embeddedor.com>
Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2022 14:31:12 -0500
From: "Gustavo A. R. Silva" <gustavo@...eddedor.com>
To: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
"Gustavo A. R. Silva" <gustavoars@...nel.org>
Cc: Johannes Berg <johannes@...solutions.net>,
Kalle Valo <kvalo@...nel.org>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-hardening@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/6][next] cfg80211: Avoid clashing function prototypes
On 10/17/22 21:41, Kees Cook wrote:
>>
>> static const iw_handler orinoco_handler[] = {
>> IW_HANDLER(SIOCSIWCOMMIT, orinoco_ioctl_commit),
>> - IW_HANDLER(SIOCGIWNAME, (iw_handler)cfg80211_wext_giwname),
>> + IW_HANDLER(SIOCGIWNAME, cfg80211_wext_giwname),
>
> This hunk should be in the orinoco patch, I think?
I just didn't want to have this huge patch touching multiple
different files. That's why I decided to split it up into three
separate patches.
But yeah; now it seems like a good idea to merge patches 1 to 3
into just a single patch.
>
>
>> [...]
>> + [IW_IOCTL_IDX(SIOCGIWRETRY)] = cfg80211_wext_giwretry,
>
> The common practice seems to be to use IW_HANDLER instead of open-coding
> it like this.
>
> IW_HANDLER(SIOCGIWRETRY, cfg80211_wext_giwretry),
Yeah; I forget this after reverting Sami's changes:
32fc4a9ad56f ("cfg80211: fix callback type mismatches in wext-compat")
I'll fix it up. :)
Thanks for the feedback!
--
Gustavo
Powered by blists - more mailing lists