On 12/02/2021 10:22, Johannes Berg wrote:
> From: Johannes Berg <johannes.berg@xxxxxxxxx>
>
> Coverity reported the strange "if (~...)" condition that's
> always true. It suggested that ! was intended instead of ~,
> but upon further analysis I'm convinced that what really was
> intended was a comparison to 0xff/0xffff (in HT/VHT cases
> respectively), since this indicates that all of the rates
> are enabled.
>
> Change the comparison accordingly.
>
> I'm guessing this never really mattered because a reset to
> not having a rate mask is basically equivalent to having a
> mask that enables all rates.
>
> Reported-by: Colin Ian King <colin.king@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Fixes: 2ffbe6d33366 ("mac80211: fix and optimize MCS mask handling")
> Fixes: b119ad6e726c ("mac80211: add rate mask logic for vht rates")
> Signed-off-by: Johannes Berg <johannes.berg@xxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> net/mac80211/cfg.c | 4 ++--
> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/net/mac80211/cfg.c b/net/mac80211/cfg.c
> index c4c70e30ad7f..68a0de02b561 100644
> --- a/net/mac80211/cfg.c
> +++ b/net/mac80211/cfg.c
> @@ -2950,14 +2950,14 @@ static int ieee80211_set_bitrate_mask(struct wiphy *wiphy,
> continue;
>
> for (j = 0; j < IEEE80211_HT_MCS_MASK_LEN; j++) {
> - if (~sdata->rc_rateidx_mcs_mask[i][j]) {
> + if (sdata->rc_rateidx_mcs_mask[i][j] != 0xff) {
> sdata->rc_has_mcs_mask[i] = true;
> break;
> }
> }
>
> for (j = 0; j < NL80211_VHT_NSS_MAX; j++) {
> - if (~sdata->rc_rateidx_vht_mcs_mask[i][j]) {
> + if (sdata->rc_rateidx_vht_mcs_mask[i][j] != 0xffff) {
> sdata->rc_has_vht_mcs_mask[i] = true;
> break;
> }
>
Looks good to me, thanks Johannes.
Reviewed-by: Colin Ian King <colin.king@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
