netdev - Re: [PATCH] wimax/i2400m: fix calculation of index, remove sizeof

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <300939a6-33b6-a941-1875-0f7fe610d441@canonical.com>
Date:   Fri, 23 Aug 2019 12:27:00 +0100
From:   Colin Ian King <colin.king@...onical.com>
To:     Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com>
Cc:     Inaky Perez-Gonzalez <inaky.perez-gonzalez@...el.com>,
        linux-wimax@...el.com, "David S . Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        netdev@...r.kernel.org, kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] wimax/i2400m: fix calculation of index, remove sizeof

On 23/08/2019 12:23, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 23, 2019 at 09:52:30AM +0100, Colin King wrote:
>> From: Colin Ian King <colin.king@...onical.com>
>>
>> The subtraction of the two pointers is automatically scaled by the
>> size of the size of the object the pointers point to, so the division
>> by sizeof(*i2400m->barker) is incorrect.  Fix this by removing the
>> division.  Also make index an unsigned int to clean up a checkpatch
>> warning.
>>
>> Addresses-Coverity: ("Extra sizeof expression")
>> Fixes: aba3792ac2d7 ("wimax/i2400m: rework bootrom initialization to be more flexible")
>> Signed-off-by: Colin Ian King <colin.king@...onical.com>
>> ---
>>  drivers/net/wimax/i2400m/fw.c | 3 +--
>>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/net/wimax/i2400m/fw.c b/drivers/net/wimax/i2400m/fw.c
>> index 489cba9b284d..599a703af6eb 100644
>> --- a/drivers/net/wimax/i2400m/fw.c
>> +++ b/drivers/net/wimax/i2400m/fw.c
>> @@ -399,8 +399,7 @@ int i2400m_is_boot_barker(struct i2400m *i2400m,
>>  	 * associated with the device. */
>>  	if (i2400m->barker
>>  	    && !memcmp(buf, i2400m->barker, sizeof(i2400m->barker->data))) {
>> -		unsigned index = (i2400m->barker - i2400m_barker_db)
>> -			/ sizeof(*i2400m->barker);
>> +		unsigned int index = i2400m->barker - i2400m_barker_db;
>>  		d_printf(2, dev, "boot barker cache-confirmed #%u/%08x\n",
>>  			 index, le32_to_cpu(i2400m->barker->data[0]));
> 
> It's only used for this debug output.  You may as well just delete it.
> 
>>  		return 0;

Deleting wrong debug code vs fixing debug code? I'd rather go for the
latter.

> 
> regards,
> dan carpenter
>