From: Larry Finger

Sent: 23 August 2021 15:24

On 8/23/21 3:44 AM, Aakash Hemadri wrote:

quoted

On 21/08/21 09:48PM, Aakash Hemadri wrote:

quoted

Fix sparse warning:

quoted

rtw_br_ext.c:836:54: warning: cast to restricted __be32

dhpch->cookie is be32, change it's type.

...

quoted

quoted

diff --git a/drivers/staging/r8188eu/core/rtw_br_ext.c b/drivers/staging/r8188eu/core/rtw_br_ext.c
index f6d1f6029ec3..f65d94bfa286 100644
--- a/drivers/staging/r8188eu/core/rtw_br_ext.c
+++ b/drivers/staging/r8188eu/core/rtw_br_ext.c

...

quoted

quoted

@@ -671,7 +671,7 @@ void dhcp_flag_bcast(struct adapter *priv, struct sk_buff *skb)
  				    (udph->dest == __constant_htons(SERVER_PORT))) { /*  DHCP request */
  					struct dhcpMessage *dhcph =
  						(struct dhcpMessage *)((size_t)udph + sizeof(struct udphdr));

This assignment looks dubious at best - WTF is (size_t) for?
I don't seem to have a source tree with this driver in it (probably only in 'next'?).
I suspect it should be:
	struct dhcp_message *dhcph = (void *)(udph + 1);

quoted

quoted

-					u32 cookie = be32_to_cpu((__be32)dhcph->cookie);
+					u32 cookie = be32_to_cpu(dhcph->cookie);

  					if (cookie == DHCP_MAGIC) { /*  match magic word */
  						if (!(dhcph->flags & htons(BROADCAST_FLAG))) {
--
2.32.0

David Laight suggested to use get_unaligned_be32, I am not sure if it's
the right thing to do because as far as I understand get_unaligned_be32
byteshifts the argument.

Can someone please confirm if this change is okay?

It is not needed. variable dhcph->cookie is 4-byte aligned. Usind the unaligned
version would just add cpu cycles and arrivw at the same point!

It rather depends on whether the input buffer is aligned.
Although if it might not be then then the structure(s) that map
it need to be marked 'packed'.
Which would also mean the get_unaligned_be32() isn't the correct
way to handle a misaligned buffer.

	David

-
Registered Address Lakeside, Bramley Road, Mount Farm, Milton Keynes, MK1 1PT, UK
Registration No: 1397386 (Wales)