On Fri, 2007-05-18 at 14:09 -0400, John W. Linville wrote:
> On Wed, May 16, 2007 at 05:01:27PM -0400, Florin Malita wrote:
> > In libertas_process_rxed_packet() and process_rxed_802_11_packet() the
> > skb is dereferenced after being passed to netif_rx (called from
> > libertas_upload_rx_packet). Spotted by Coverity (1658, 1659).
>
> Relocating the libertas_upload_rx_packet call is fine, but...
>
> > Also, libertas_upload_rx_packet() unconditionally returns 0 so the error
> > check is dead code - might as well take it out.
>
> Is this merely an implementation detail? Or an absolute fact?
> If the former is true, then we should preserve the error
> checking. If the latter, then we should change the signature of
> libertas_upload_rx_packet to return void.
According to the comments, netif_rx always succeeds. I think we should
just change the return type to void since there's nothing else in that
function that can fail.
Dan
> > Signed-off-by: Florin Malita <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> > lbs_pr_debug(1, "RX Data: size of actual packet = %d\n", skb->len);
> > - if (libertas_upload_rx_packet(priv, skb)) {
> > - lbs_pr_debug(1, "RX error: libertas_upload_rx_packet"
> > - " returns failure\n");
> > - ret = -1;
> > - goto done;
> > - }
> > priv->stats.rx_bytes += skb->len;
> > priv->stats.rx_packets++;
> >
> > + libertas_upload_rx_packet(priv, skb);
> > +
> > ret = 0;
> > done:
> > LEAVE();
>
> Another potential patch is to remove the "ret = 0" line before the
> "done" label, since ret is initialized at the head of the function.
> Come to think of it, you can probably remove the "= 0" part of ret's
> declaration as well (in both functions).
>
> Hth!
>
> John
>
> P.S. Also, please make sure to send wireless patches to
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] and CC me.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
