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  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:   Mon, 14 Sep 2020 21:51:32 +0000
From:   Saeed Mahameed <saeedm@...dia.com>
To:     "alex.dewar90@...il.com" <alex.dewar90@...il.com>
CC:     "linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org" <linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org>,
        "ath10k@...ts.infradead.org" <ath10k@...ts.infradead.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "kvalo@...eaurora.org" <kvalo@...eaurora.org>,
        "davem@...emloft.net" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        "netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        "kuba@...nel.org" <kuba@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ath10k: sdio: remove reduntant check in for loop

On Mon, 2020-09-14 at 20:19 +0100, Alex Dewar wrote:
> The for loop checks whether cur_section is NULL on every iteration,
> but
> we know it can never be NULL as there is another check towards the
> bottom of the loop body. Remove this unnecessary check.
> 
> Also change i to start at 1, so that we don't need an extra +1 wheno
> we
> use it.
> 
> Addresses-Coverity: 1496984 ("Null pointer dereferences)
> Signed-off-by: Alex Dewar <alex.dewar90@...il.com>
> ---
>  drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath10k/sdio.c | 4 ++--
>  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath10k/sdio.c
> b/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath10k/sdio.c
> index 81ddaafb6721..f31ab2ec2c48 100644
> --- a/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath10k/sdio.c
> +++ b/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath10k/sdio.c
> @@ -2308,7 +2308,7 @@ static int
> ath10k_sdio_dump_memory_section(struct ath10k *ar,
>  
>  	count = 0;
>  
> -	for (i = 0; cur_section; i++) {
> +	for (i = 1; ; i++) {
'i' is only referenced once inside the loop to check boundary,

the loop is actually iterating over cur_section, so i would make it
clear in the loop statement, e.g.:
Remove the break condition and the cur_section assignment at the end of
the loop and use the loop statement to do it for you

for (; cur_section; cur_section = next_section)


>  		section_size = cur_section->end - cur_section->start;
>  
>  		if (section_size <= 0) {
> @@ -2318,7 +2318,7 @@ static int
> ath10k_sdio_dump_memory_section(struct ath10k *ar,
>  			break;
>  		}
>  
> -		if ((i + 1) == mem_region->section_table.size) {

And for i you can just increment it inline:
if (++i == ...)
    

> +		if (i == mem_region->section_table.size) {
>  			/* last section */
>  			next_section = NULL;
>  			skip_size = 0;

Powered by blists - more mailing lists