From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754896AbdCWBxl (ORCPT ); Wed, 22 Mar 2017 21:53:41 -0400 Received: from mail-it0-f51.google.com ([209.85.214.51]:34868 "EHLO mail-it0-f51.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751905AbdCWBxc (ORCPT ); Wed, 22 Mar 2017 21:53:32 -0400 Message-ID: <1490234008.66163.1.camel@gmail.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH] staging: wilc1000: use kernel define byte order macros From: Robert Perry Hooker To: Dan Carpenter Cc: devel@driverdev.osuosl.org, gregkh@linuxfoundation.org, ganesh.krishna@microchip.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, aditya.shankar@microchip.com Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2017 19:53:28 -0600 In-Reply-To: <20170322092403.GF32449@mwanda> References: <1490126140-12867-1-git-send-email-perry.hooker@gmail.com> <20170321201904.GD32449@mwanda> <1490132410.17318.6.camel@gmail.com> <20170322092403.GF32449@mwanda> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Mailer: Evolution 3.16.2.1 (3.16.2.1-1.fc22) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org I don't think buff is an ieee80211_hdr struct. I think it's the rx_buffer allocated at wilc_wlan.c:1417. Regards, Perry On Wed, 2017-03-22 at 12:24 +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote: > On Tue, Mar 21, 2017 at 03:40:10PM -0600, Robert Perry Hooker wrote: > > Thanks for taking a look, Dan. Sorry if I missed the mark here. > > > > Can you tell me a bit more about the bug this would introduce? > > > > I see that ieee80211_is_action is defined like this: static inline bool ieee80211_is_action(__le16 fc) > > > > ...and that buff[FRAME_TYPE_ID]is a u8 (since FRAME_TYPE_ID = 0). > > > > Is there an issue with calling cpu_to_le16 on a u8 that isn't encountered by implicitly casting a u8 to __le16? Or > > am I > > missing something else? > > > > Oh... Hm. You're right. I just was thinking that since buff was a > little endian buffer but it's only reading a u8. It should probably > be reading a le16... The buff likely is just a regular ieee80211_hdr > struct. > > So you're fixing a bug, but probably not in the right way. We should > instead just say "struct ieee80211_hdr *hdr = buff;" and instead of > treating it like an array of u8. Probably it requires testing... > > regards, > dan carpenter >