On Wed, Dec 13, 2023 at 11:36:08AM -0800, Jeff Johnson wrote: > On 12/13/2023 11:16 AM, Kees Cook wrote: > > On Wed, Dec 13, 2023 at 09:06:44AM -0800, Jeff Johnson wrote: > >> In [1] it was identified that in ath10k_wmi_10_4_gen_tdls_peer_update() > >> the memset(skb->data, 0, sizeof(*cmd)) is unnecessary since function > >> ath10k_wmi_alloc_skb() already zeroes skb->data, so remove it. > > > > Is .gen_tdls_peer_update only ever called after a fresh allocation? It > > wasn't obvious to me as I tried to follow the call paths. Is there harm > > in leaving this? > > The only harm is a slight increase in code size and cpu cycles. > > However note the skb allocation is done within > ath10k_wmi_10_4_gen_tdls_peer_update() itself, just before the code > being removed: > skb = ath10k_wmi_alloc_skb(ar, len); > if (!skb) > return ERR_PTR(-ENOMEM); > > And in ath10k_wmi_alloc_skb() we have: > memset(skb->data, 0, round_len); > > So the memset() being removed is always redundant. LOL. I see now. I missed that was was looking outside the function! :P Reviewed-by: Kees Cook <keescook@xxxxxxxxxxxx> -- Kees Cook
