Return-path: Received: from mail-qg0-f41.google.com ([209.85.192.41]:36834 "EHLO mail-qg0-f41.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751478AbbLSBQO (ORCPT ); Fri, 18 Dec 2015 20:16:14 -0500 Received: by mail-qg0-f41.google.com with SMTP id c96so46896649qgd.3 for ; Fri, 18 Dec 2015 17:16:14 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] staging: Fix bitshifts by wrong offsets in wilc1000/host_interface.c To: Greg KH References: <1449024595-20290-1-git-send-email-mrugiero@gmail.com> <20151218225035.GA26842@kroah.com> Cc: devel@driverdev.osuosl.org, linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org, johnny.kim@atmel.com, austin.shin@atmel.com, chris.park@atmel.com, tony.cho@atmel.com, glen.lee@atmel.com, leo.kim@atmel.com From: "Mario J. Rugiero" Message-ID: <5674AFD7.9010604@gmail.com> (sfid-20151219_021618_330330_B2FFBB10) Date: Fri, 18 Dec 2015 22:16:07 -0300 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20151218225035.GA26842@kroah.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: El 18/12/15 a las 19:50, Greg KH escribi?: > On Tue, Dec 01, 2015 at 11:49:55PM -0300, Mario J. Rugiero wrote: >> struct set_multicast uses (implicitly) sizeof(bool) to determine how many bytes to copy in >> Handle_SetMulticastFilter. Since that is implementation defined, it triggered sparse to >> rightfully complain about shifting a bigger value than supported. >> Since it was used as if assuming it was 32 bits, I replaced the bool member by a u32. >> Also, time_out and buf_size members of ba_session_info are u16, but while copying their >> bytes into ptr in Handle_AddBASession shift 16 bits for the second byte instead of 8 bits. >> This patch fixes those two issues. >> >> Signed-off-by: Mario J. Rugiero >> --- >> drivers/staging/wilc1000/host_interface.c | 8 ++++---- >> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) > > How did you test this is correct? > > Doesn't apply to my tree :( > > thanks, > > greg k-h > Because I lack the hardware, I only tested it built with allmodconfig and tried to be very careful about my reasoning. I know I *should* be testing it, and am sorry about it. Should I try and update the patch? Maybe it conflicts with a different one. I made the changes on top of staging-testing. In retrospect, I believe the issues should be handled in different patches anyway, so I would like to do a second version anyway. Regards, Mario.