On Fri, Jul 11, 2014 at 8:57 PM, Bing Zhao <bzhao@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> It's already been taken cared by the 'default' case in the
> switch/case below.
>
> Reported-by: Paul Stewart <pstew@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Signed-off-by: Bing Zhao <bzhao@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> Signed-off-by: Avinash Patil <patila@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> drivers/net/wireless/mwifiex/tdls.c | 10 +++-------
> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/net/wireless/mwifiex/tdls.c b/drivers/net/wireless/mwifiex/tdls.c
> index a414161..57f972d 100644
> --- a/drivers/net/wireless/mwifiex/tdls.c
> +++ b/drivers/net/wireless/mwifiex/tdls.c
> @@ -791,19 +791,15 @@ void mwifiex_process_tdls_action_frame(struct mwifiex_private *priv,
> return;
>
> peer = buf + ETH_ALEN;
> - action = *(buf + sizeof(struct ethhdr) + 2);
>
> - /* just handle TDLS setup request/response/confirm */
> - if (action > WLAN_TDLS_SETUP_CONFIRM)
I'm going to assume that the intent of the original test was to avoid
allocation of sta_ptr below in the case where the action was invalid.
Is it okay to allocate this pointer and not do anything with it below?
> + sta_ptr = mwifiex_add_sta_entry(priv, peer);
> + if (!sta_ptr)
> return;
>
> + action = *(buf + sizeof(struct ethhdr) + 2);
> dev_dbg(priv->adapter->dev,
> "rx:tdls action: peer=%pM, action=%d\n", peer, action);
>
> - sta_ptr = mwifiex_add_sta_entry(priv, peer);
> - if (!sta_ptr)
> - return;
> -
> switch (action) {
> case WLAN_TDLS_SETUP_REQUEST:
> if (len < (sizeof(struct ethhdr) + TDLS_REQ_FIX_LEN))
> --
> 1.8.2.3
>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-wireless" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
