linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 1/3] staging: rtl8723bs: Modify struct rx_pkt

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: <2025040215-confusing-sibling-f99f@gregkh>
Date: Wed, 2 Apr 2025 20:21:41 +0100
From: Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To: Erick Karanja <karanja99erick@...il.com>
Cc: outreachy@...ts.linux.dev, philipp.g.hortmann@...il.com,
	linux-staging@...ts.linux.dev, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/3] staging: rtl8723bs: Modify struct rx_pkt_attrib
 attribute bdecrypted

On Wed, Apr 02, 2025 at 08:16:42PM +0300, Erick Karanja wrote:
> Standardize boolean representation by ensuring consistency,
> replace instances of 1/0 with true/false where boolean logic is implied,
> as some definitions already use true/false.
> This improves code clarity and aligns with the kernel’s bool type usage.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Erick Karanja <karanja99erick@...il.com>
> ---
>  drivers/staging/rtl8723bs/core/rtw_recv.c | 2 +-
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/staging/rtl8723bs/core/rtw_recv.c b/drivers/staging/rtl8723bs/core/rtw_recv.c
> index a389ba5ecc6f..fd04dbacb50f 100644
> --- a/drivers/staging/rtl8723bs/core/rtw_recv.c
> +++ b/drivers/staging/rtl8723bs/core/rtw_recv.c
> @@ -1358,7 +1358,7 @@ static signed int validate_80211w_mgmt(struct adapter *adapter, union recv_frame
>  			u8 *mgmt_DATA;
>  			u32 data_len = 0;
>  
> -			pattrib->bdecrypted = 0;
> +			pattrib->bdecrypted = false;

but bdecrypted is a u8, not a boolean type.  So setting it to "false"
does not seem correct here, right?

Also, the name of the variable should really be changed.

But, step back, are you _SURE_ you can change this structure at all?
At a quick glance it kind of looks like it comes directly from the
hardware, or am I mis-reading the driver code?

Have you tested this series on an actual device?

thanks,

greg k-h