linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] staging: rtl8192e: use explicitly signed char

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, 25 Oct 2022 09:19:58 +0300
From:   Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com>
To:     "Jason A. Donenfeld" <Jason@...c4.com>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        linux-staging@...ts.linux.dev
Subject: Re: [PATCH] staging: rtl8192e: use explicitly signed char

On Mon, Oct 24, 2022 at 06:30:05PM +0200, Jason A. Donenfeld wrote:
> With char becoming unsigned by default, and with `char` alone being
> ambiguous and based on architecture, signed chars need to be marked
> explicitly as such. In this case, passing `char *extra` is part of the
> iw API, and that extra is mostly intended to be somewhat opaque. So just
> cast to `s8 *` for the sign test. This fixes warnings like:
> 
> drivers/staging/rtl8192e/rtllib_softmac_wx.c:459 rtllib_wx_set_essid() warn: impossible condition '(extra[i] < 0) => (0-255 < 0)'
> 
> Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
> Cc: linux-staging@...ts.linux.dev
> Signed-off-by: Jason A. Donenfeld <Jason@...c4.com>
> ---
>  drivers/staging/rtl8192e/rtllib_softmac_wx.c | 2 +-
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/staging/rtl8192e/rtllib_softmac_wx.c b/drivers/staging/rtl8192e/rtllib_softmac_wx.c
> index f9589c5b62ba..4563e3b5bd47 100644
> --- a/drivers/staging/rtl8192e/rtllib_softmac_wx.c
> +++ b/drivers/staging/rtl8192e/rtllib_softmac_wx.c
> @@ -456,7 +456,7 @@ int rtllib_wx_set_essid(struct rtllib_device *ieee,
>  	}
>  
>  	for (i = 0; i < len; i++) {
> -		if (extra[i] < 0) {
> +		if (((s8 *)extra)[i] < 0) {

I agree with Linus that this if statement is nonsense and should just be
deleted.

regards,
dan carpenter

>  			ret = -1;
>  			goto out;
>  		}