Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Date:   Wed, 28 Jul 2021 19:50:34 +0200
From:   Len Baker <len.baker@gmx.com>
To:     Brian Norris <briannorris@chromium.org>,
        Kalle Valo <kvalo@codeaurora.org>
Cc:     Len Baker <len.baker@gmx.com>,
        Yan-Hsuan Chuang <tony0620emma@gmail.com>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>,
        Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
        Pkshih <pkshih@realtek.com>,
        linux-wireless <linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org>,
        "<netdev@vger.kernel.org>" <netdev@vger.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] rtw88: Remove unnecessary check code
Message-ID: <20210728175034.GB4275@titan>
References: <20210718084202.5118-1-len.baker@gmx.com>
 <87eebkgt8t.fsf@codeaurora.org>
 <CA+ASDXNm_aKAJcJVCx45VqAXTgXjfOju7xZPa_3MAvBzn2r7_w@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CA+ASDXNm_aKAJcJVCx45VqAXTgXjfOju7xZPa_3MAvBzn2r7_w@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, Jul 27, 2021 at 11:16:11AM -0700, Brian Norris wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 26, 2021 at 11:34 PM Kalle Valo <kvalo@codeaurora.org> wrote=
:
> >
> > Len Baker <len.baker@gmx.com> writes:
> >
> > > The rtw_pci_init_rx_ring function is only ever called with a fixed
> > > constant or RTK_MAX_RX_DESC_NUM for the "len" argument. Since this
> > > constant is defined as 512, the "if (len > TRX_BD_IDX_MASK)" check
> > > can never happen (TRX_BD_IDX_MASK is defined as GENMASK(11, 0) or in
> > > other words as 4095).
> > >
> > > So, remove this check.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Len Baker <len.baker@gmx.com>
> >
> > Are everyone ok with this version?
>
> I suppose? I'm not really sure where the line should be drawn on
> excessive bounds checking, false warnings from otherwise quite useful
> static analysis tools, etc., but I suppose it doesn't make much sense
> to add additional excess bounds checks just to quiet Coverity.
>
> It might be nice to include the true motivation in the patch
> description though, which is: "this also quiets a false warning from
> Coverity".

Ok, I will send a new version with the commit changelog updated.

>
> Anyway, feel free to pick one of these:
>
> Shrug-by: Brian Norris <briannorris@chromium.org>
>
> or
>
> Reviewed-by: Brian Norris <briannorris@chromium.org>

Thanks,
Len