Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Date:   Wed, 3 Aug 2022 00:26:50 +0100
From:   Phillip Potter <phil@philpotter.co.uk>
To:     Joe Perches <joe@perches.com>
Cc:     Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@oracle.com>,
        gregkh@linuxfoundation.org, Larry.Finger@lwfinger.net,
        paskripkin@gmail.com, martin@kaiser.cx, straube.linux@gmail.com,
        fmdefrancesco@gmail.com, abdun.nihaal@gmail.com,
        linux-staging@lists.linux.dev, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] staging: r8188eu: convert rtw_set_802_11_add_wep
 error code semantics
Message-ID: <YumyulRRT4gXNuNh@equinox>
References: <20220728231150.972-1-phil@philpotter.co.uk>
 <20220728231150.972-3-phil@philpotter.co.uk>
 <20220729064803.GT2338@kadam>
 <YuV452xuR1S0WyJi@OEMBP14.local>
 <f93d3ea32ac04a5edd8159abcb0504f71fe7aee4.camel@perches.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <f93d3ea32ac04a5edd8159abcb0504f71fe7aee4.camel@perches.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Sun, Jul 31, 2022 at 10:12:56AM -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
> Yes, you've got it right.
> 
> I think Dan is suggesting something like the below, but
> not necessarily in a single patch:
> ---
>  drivers/staging/r8188eu/core/rtw_ioctl_set.c | 38 ++++++++++++----------------
>  1 file changed, 16 insertions(+), 22 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/staging/r8188eu/core/rtw_ioctl_set.c b/drivers/staging/r8188eu/core/rtw_ioctl_set.c
> index 17f6bcbeebf42..2736bbce83b5b 100644
> --- a/drivers/staging/r8188eu/core/rtw_ioctl_set.c
> +++ b/drivers/staging/r8188eu/core/rtw_ioctl_set.c
> @@ -390,44 +390,38 @@ u8 rtw_set_802_11_authentication_mode(struct adapter *padapter, enum ndis_802_11
>  	return ret;
>  }
>  
> -u8 rtw_set_802_11_add_wep(struct adapter *padapter, struct ndis_802_11_wep *wep)
> +int rtw_set_802_11_add_wep(struct adapter *padapter,
> +			   struct ndis_802_11_wep *wep)
>  {
> -	int		keyid, res;
> -	struct security_priv *psecuritypriv = &padapter->securitypriv;
> -	u8		ret = _SUCCESS;
> +	int keyid;
> +	struct security_priv *secpriv = &padapter->securitypriv;
>  
>  	keyid = wep->KeyIndex & 0x3fffffff;
> -
> -	if (keyid >= 4) {
> -		ret = false;
> -		goto exit;
> -	}
> +	if (keyid >= 4)
> +		return -EOPNOTSUPP;
>  
>  	switch (wep->KeyLength) {
>  	case 5:
> -		psecuritypriv->dot11PrivacyAlgrthm = _WEP40_;
> +		secpriv->dot11PrivacyAlgrthm = _WEP40_;
>  		break;
>  	case 13:
> -		psecuritypriv->dot11PrivacyAlgrthm = _WEP104_;
> +		secpriv->dot11PrivacyAlgrthm = _WEP104_;
>  		break;
>  	default:
> -		psecuritypriv->dot11PrivacyAlgrthm = _NO_PRIVACY_;
> +		secpriv->dot11PrivacyAlgrthm = _NO_PRIVACY_;
>  		break;
>  	}
>  
> -	memcpy(&psecuritypriv->dot11DefKey[keyid].skey[0], &wep->KeyMaterial, wep->KeyLength);
> +	memcpy(secpriv->dot11DefKey[keyid].skey, &wep->KeyMaterial,
> +	       wep->KeyLength);
>  
> -	psecuritypriv->dot11DefKeylen[keyid] = wep->KeyLength;
> +	secpriv->dot11DefKeylen[keyid] = wep->KeyLength;
> +	secpriv->dot11PrivacyKeyIndex = keyid;
>  
> -	psecuritypriv->dot11PrivacyKeyIndex = keyid;
> +	if (rtw_set_key(padapter, secpriv, keyid, 1) == _FAIL)
> +		return -ENOMEM;
>  
> -	res = rtw_set_key(padapter, psecuritypriv, keyid, 1);
> -
> -	if (res == _FAIL)
> -		ret = false;
> -exit:
> -
> -	return ret;
> +	return 0;
>  }
>  
>  /*
> 

Hi Joe,

Thanks for the suggestion, this is pretty much what I'd interpreted from
Dan's advice in the meantime. I will prepare a V2 tomorrow.

Regards,
Phil