Fix sparse byte-order warnings in the i2400m_bm_cmd_prepare()
function:
wimax/i2400m/fw.c:194:36: warning: restricted __le32 degrades to integer
wimax/i2400m/fw.c:195:34: warning: invalid assignment: +=
wimax/i2400m/fw.c:195:34: left side has type unsigned int
wimax/i2400m/fw.c:195:34: right side has type restricted __le32
wimax/i2400m/fw.c:196:32: warning: restricted __le32 degrades to integer
wimax/i2400m/fw.c:196:47: warning: restricted __le32 degrades to integer
wimax/i2400m/fw.c:196:66: warning: restricted __le32 degrades to integer
Signed-off-by: Anirudh Rayabharam <mail@anirudhrb.com>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20210212153843.8554-1-mail@anirudhrb.com
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
In this particular case, the struct element is already flexible struct.
Thus struct element ie[] is ambiguous inside another struct. The members
of struct element ie aren't being accessed in code anywhere. The data of
u8 type is copied in it. So it has been changed to u8 ie[] to make the
sparse happy and code simple.
Warning from sparse:
drivers/stagingwfx/hif_tx.c: note: in included file (through drivers/stagingwfx/data_tx.h, drivers/staging//wfx/wfx.h):
drivers/staging//wfx/hif_api_cmd.h:103:26: warning: array of flexible structures
Reviewed-by: Jérôme Pouiller <jerome.pouiller@silabs.com>
Signed-off-by: Muhammad Usama Anjum <musamaanjum@gmail.com>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20210211105026.GA45458@LEGION
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
There is a regular need in the kernel to provide a way to declare having
a dynamically sized set of trailing elements in a structure. Kernel code
should always use “flexible array members”[1] for these cases. The older
style of one-element or zero-length arrays should no longer be used[2].
Refactor the code according to the use of a flexible-array member in
struct ndis_80211_var_ie, instead of a one-element array.
Also, this helps with the ongoing efforts to enable -Warray-bounds and
fix the following warnings:
CC [M] drivers/staging/rtl8723bs/core/rtw_wlan_util.o
In file included from ./drivers/staging/rtl8723bs/include/drv_types.h:20,
from drivers/staging/rtl8723bs/core/rtw_wlan_util.c:9:
drivers/staging/rtl8723bs/core/rtw_wlan_util.c: In function ‘HT_caps_handler’:
./drivers/staging/rtl8723bs/include/basic_types.h:108:11: warning: array subscript 1 is above array bounds of ‘u8[1]’ {aka ‘unsigned char[1]’} [-Warray-bounds]
108 | (EF1BYTE(*((u8 *)(__pstart))))
| ^
./drivers/staging/rtl8723bs/include/basic_types.h:42:8: note: in definition of macro ‘EF1BYTE’
42 | ((u8)(_val))
| ^~~~
./drivers/staging/rtl8723bs/include/basic_types.h:127:4: note: in expansion of macro ‘LE_P1BYTE_TO_HOST_1BYTE’
127 | (LE_P1BYTE_TO_HOST_1BYTE(__pstart) >> (__bitoffset)) & \
| ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
./drivers/staging/rtl8723bs/include/rtw_ht.h:97:55: note: in expansion of macro ‘LE_BITS_TO_1BYTE’
97 | #define GET_HT_CAPABILITY_ELE_RX_STBC(_pEleStart) LE_BITS_TO_1BYTE((_pEleStart)+1, 0, 2)
| ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
drivers/staging/rtl8723bs/core/rtw_wlan_util.c:1104:58: note: in expansion of macro ‘GET_HT_CAPABILITY_ELE_RX_STBC’
1104 | if (TEST_FLAG(phtpriv->stbc_cap, STBC_HT_ENABLE_TX) && GET_HT_CAPABILITY_ELE_RX_STBC(pIE->data)) {
| ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
drivers/staging/rtl8723bs/core/rtw_wlan_util.c:1051:75: warning: array subscript 2 is above array bounds of ‘u8[1]’ {aka ‘unsigned char[1]’} [-Warray-bounds]
1051 | if ((pmlmeinfo->HT_caps.u.HT_cap_element.AMPDU_para & 0x3) > (pIE->data[i] & 0x3))
| ~~~~~~~~~^~~
drivers/staging/rtl8723bs/core/rtw_wlan_util.c: In function ‘check_assoc_AP’:
drivers/staging/rtl8723bs/core/rtw_wlan_util.c:1606:19: warning: array subscript 4 is above array bounds of ‘u8[1]’ {aka ‘unsigned char[1]’} [-Warray-bounds]
1606 | if (pIE->data[4] == 1)
| ~~~~~~~~~^~~
drivers/staging/rtl8723bs/core/rtw_wlan_util.c:1609:20: warning: array subscript 5 is above array bounds of ‘u8[1]’ {aka ‘unsigned char[1]’} [-Warray-bounds]
1609 | if (pIE->data[5] & RT_HT_CAP_USE_92SE)
| ~~~~~~~~~^~~
drivers/staging/rtl8723bs/core/rtw_wlan_util.c:1613:19: warning: array subscript 5 is above array bounds of ‘u8[1]’ {aka ‘unsigned char[1]’} [-Warray-bounds]
1613 | if (pIE->data[5] & RT_HT_CAP_USE_SOFTAP)
| ~~~~~~~~~^~~
drivers/staging/rtl8723bs/core/rtw_wlan_util.c:1617:20: warning: array subscript 6 is above array bounds of ‘u8[1]’ {aka ‘unsigned char[1]’} [-Warray-bounds]
1617 | if (pIE->data[6] & RT_HT_CAP_USE_JAGUAR_BCUT) {
| ~~~~~~~~~^~~
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flexible_array_member
[2] https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/v5.9/process/deprecated.html#zero-length-and-one-element-arrays
Link: https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/79
Link: https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/109
Build-tested-by: kernel test robot <lkp@intel.com>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/602434b8.jc5DoXJ0bmHoxgIL%25lkp@intel.com/
Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavoars@kernel.org>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20210210224937.GA11922@embeddedor
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
Remove braces from both occurences of single line if blocks in
include/rtw_mlme.h, fixes two checkpatch warnings, thus clearing
this type of warning from this file.
Also swaps two if statement comparisons around, so the variable is on
the left in each one. This fixes two warnings also.
Signed-off-by: Phillip Potter <phil@philpotter.co.uk>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20210209001043.165080-1-phil@philpotter.co.uk
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
When the firmware rejects a frame (because station become asleep or
disconnected), the frame is re-queued in mac80211. However, the
re-queued frame was 8 bytes longer than the original one (the size of
the ICV for the encryption). So, when mac80211 try to send this frame
again, it is a little bigger than expected.
If the frame is re-queued secveral time it end with a skb_over_panic
because the skb buffer is not large enough.
Note it only happens when device acts as an AP and encryption is
enabled.
This patch more or less reverts the commit 049fde1304 ("staging: wfx:
drop useless field from struct wfx_tx_priv").
Fixes: 049fde1304 ("staging: wfx: drop useless field from struct wfx_tx_priv")
Signed-off-by: Jérôme Pouiller <jerome.pouiller@silabs.com>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20210208135254.399964-1-Jerome.Pouiller@silabs.com
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
Constify two static structs which are never modified, to allow the
compiler to put them in read-only memory.
The only usage of controller_attribute_group is to put its address in an
array of pointers to const struct attribute_group, and the only usage of
can_power_ops is to assign its address to the 'ops' field in the
regulator_desc struct, which is a pointer to const struct regulator_ops.
Reviewed-by: Sven Van Asbroeck <TheSven73@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Rikard Falkeborn <rikard.falkeborn@gmail.com>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20210207202501.9494-1-rikard.falkeborn@gmail.com
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
The global gpio_desc pointer and int vbus_irq were defined in the header,
instead put the definitions in the translation unit and make them static as
there's only a single consumer, and these symbols shouldn't pollute the
global namespace.
This fixes the following sparse warnings for this driver:
drivers/staging/emxx_udc/emxx_udc.c: note: in included file:
drivers/staging/emxx_udc/emxx_udc.h:23:18: warning: symbol 'vbus_gpio' was not
declared. Should it be static? drivers/staging/emxx_udc/emxx_udc.h:24:5:
warning: symbol 'vbus_irq' was not declared. Should it be static?
Signed-off-by: Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi <memxor@gmail.com>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20210207085911.270746-1-memxor@gmail.com
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
multiple structures contains a ieee80211_rts structure, which is required to
have at least two byte alignment, but are annotated with a __packed attribute
to force single-byte alignment:
staging/vt6656/rxtx.h:98:1: warning: alignment 1 of 'struct vnt_rts_g' is less than 2 [-Wpacked-not-aligned]
staging/vt6656/rxtx.h:106:1: warning: alignment 1 of 'struct vnt_rts_ab' is less than 2 [-Wpacked-not-aligned]
staging/vt6656/rxtx.h:116:1: warning: alignment 1 of 'struct vnt_cts' is less than 2 [-Wpacked-not-aligned]
I see no reason why the structure itself would be misaligned, and all members
have at least two-byte alignment within the structure, so use the same
constraint on the sturcture itself.
Signed-off-by: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20210204162731.3132069-1-arnd@kernel.org
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
Building this with 'make W=1' produces a couple of warnings:
rtl8723bs/include/ieee80211.h:730:1: warning: alignment 1 of 'struct ieee80211_assoc_request_frame' is less than 2 [-Wpacked-not-aligned]
rtl8723bs/include/ieee80211.h:737:1: warning: alignment 1 of 'struct ieee80211_assoc_response_frame' is less than 2 [-Wpacked-not-aligned]
The warnings are in dead code, so just remove the bits that
are obviously broken like this.
Signed-off-by: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20210204162956.3276523-1-arnd@kernel.org
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
strlcpy is marked as deprecated in Documentation/process/deprecated.rst,
and there is no functional difference when the caller expects truncation
(when not checking the return value). strscpy is relatively better as it
also avoids scanning the whole source string.
This silences the related checkpatch warnings from:
5dbdb2d87c ("checkpatch: prefer strscpy to strlcpy")
Signed-off-by: Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi <memxor@gmail.com>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20210131172838.146706-14-memxor@gmail.com
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
strlcpy is marked as deprecated in Documentation/process/deprecated.rst,
and there is no functional difference when the caller expects truncation
(when not checking the return value). strscpy is relatively better as it
also avoids scanning the whole source string.
This silences the related checkpatch warnings from:
5dbdb2d87c ("checkpatch: prefer strscpy to strlcpy")
Signed-off-by: Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi <memxor@gmail.com>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20210131172838.146706-13-memxor@gmail.com
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
strlcpy is marked as deprecated in Documentation/process/deprecated.rst,
and there is no functional difference when the caller expects truncation
(when not checking the return value). strscpy is relatively better as it
also avoids scanning the whole source string.
This silences the related checkpatch warnings from:
5dbdb2d87c ("checkpatch: prefer strscpy to strlcpy")
Signed-off-by: Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi <memxor@gmail.com>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20210131172838.146706-12-memxor@gmail.com
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
strlcpy is marked as deprecated in Documentation/process/deprecated.rst,
and there is no functional difference when the caller expects truncation
(when not checking the return value). strscpy is relatively better as it
also avoids scanning the whole source string.
This silences the related checkpatch warnings from:
5dbdb2d87c ("checkpatch: prefer strscpy to strlcpy")
Signed-off-by: Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi <memxor@gmail.com>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20210131172838.146706-11-memxor@gmail.com
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
strlcpy is marked as deprecated in Documentation/process/deprecated.rst,
and there is no functional difference when the caller expects truncation
(when not checking the return value). strscpy is relatively better as it
also avoids scanning the whole source string.
This silences the related checkpatch warnings from:
5dbdb2d87c ("checkpatch: prefer strscpy to strlcpy")
Signed-off-by: Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi <memxor@gmail.com>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20210131172838.146706-10-memxor@gmail.com
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
strlcpy is marked as deprecated in Documentation/process/deprecated.rst,
and there is no functional difference when the caller expects truncation
(when not checking the return value). strscpy is relatively better as it
also avoids scanning the whole source string.
This silences the related checkpatch warnings from:
5dbdb2d87c ("checkpatch: prefer strscpy to strlcpy")
Signed-off-by: Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi <memxor@gmail.com>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20210131172838.146706-9-memxor@gmail.com
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
strlcpy is marked as deprecated in Documentation/process/deprecated.rst,
and there is no functional difference when the caller expects truncation
(when not checking the return value). strscpy is relatively better as it
also avoids scanning the whole source string.
This silences the related checkpatch warnings from:
5dbdb2d87c ("checkpatch: prefer strscpy to strlcpy")
Signed-off-by: Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi <memxor@gmail.com>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20210131172838.146706-8-memxor@gmail.com
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
strlcpy is marked as deprecated in Documentation/process/deprecated.rst,
and there is no functional difference when the caller expects truncation
(when not checking the return value). strscpy is relatively better as it
also avoids scanning the whole source string.
This silences the related checkpatch warnings from:
5dbdb2d87c ("checkpatch: prefer strscpy to strlcpy")
Signed-off-by: Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi <memxor@gmail.com>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20210131172838.146706-7-memxor@gmail.com
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
