linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH wireless-next] wifi: rtw88: Fix an unreachable code issue

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <773afd3d-91f0-4dc6-abf8-481d3125c047@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2024 21:10:09 +0200
From: Bitterblue Smith <rtl8821cerfe2@...il.com>
To: Dheeraj Reddy Jonnalagadda <dheeraj.linuxdev@...il.com>,
 pkshih@...ltek.com, linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org
Cc: kvalo@...nel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH wireless-next] wifi: rtw88: Fix an unreachable code issue

On 22/11/2024 14:14, Dheeraj Reddy Jonnalagadda wrote:
> The error handling in rtw8821a_iqk_tx_vdf_true() contained unreachable
> code due to tx_fail being explicitly set to false before the error check.
> This prevented proper handling of failures and resulted in dead code.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Dheeraj Reddy Jonnalagadda <dheeraj.linuxdev@...il.com>
> ---
>  drivers/net/wireless/realtek/rtw88/rtw8821a.c | 2 --
>  1 file changed, 2 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/net/wireless/realtek/rtw88/rtw8821a.c b/drivers/net/wireless/realtek/rtw88/rtw8821a.c
> index db242c9ad68f..c06ba7d615df 100644
> --- a/drivers/net/wireless/realtek/rtw88/rtw8821a.c
> +++ b/drivers/net/wireless/realtek/rtw88/rtw8821a.c
> @@ -221,8 +221,6 @@ static void rtw8821a_iqk_tx_vdf_true(struct rtw_dev *rtwdev, u32 cal,
>  				/* Originally: if (~tx_fail) {
>  				 * It looks like a typo, so make it more explicit.
>  				 */
> -				tx_fail = false;
> -
>  				if (!tx_fail) {
>  					rtw_write32(rtwdev, REG_RFECTL_A,
>  						    0x02000000);

It's like that on purpose, as you can see from the comment.

Your patch changes the behaviour of the code. If it really bothers you,
fix it without changing the behaviour.

Also, you should mention in the commit message if you tested
with real hardware or not, and what tool brought this problem
to your attention.