On Thu, 2012-11-29 at 02:07 +0200, Eliad Peller wrote: > On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 2:00 AM, Johannes Berg > <johannes@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Thu, 2012-11-29 at 01:53 +0200, Eliad Peller wrote: > >> On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 11:44 PM, Johannes Berg > >> <johannes@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> > From: Johannes Berg <johannes.berg@xxxxxxxxx> > >> > > >> > The cmp_bss() comparator function uses memcmp() to > >> > compare the SSID. This means that cmp_hidden_bss() > >> > needs to similarly return a number bigger than zero > >> > (use 1) instead of -1 when ie1 is bigger than ie2, > >> > which is the case if an ie2 byte is non-zero. > > > >> > +++ b/net/wireless/scan.c > >> > @@ -472,7 +472,7 @@ static int cmp_hidden_bss(struct cfg80211_bss *a, struct cfg80211_bss *b) > >> > /* zeroed SSID ie is another indication of a hidden bss */ > >> > for (i = 0; i < ie2[1]; i++) > >> > if (ie2[i + 2]) > >> > - return -1; > >> > + return 1; > >> > > >> > return 0; > >> > } > >> > >> maybe i'm misreading it, but there is still no comparison here at all, > >> so it seems wrong as well :) > >> (practically, i guess it doesn't really matter, because if there is > >> some non-null char, this is not a hidden ssid anyway) > > > > Hmm yeah you're right, it should be > > return ie2[i + 1] - ie1[i + 1]; > > > > (or the other way around? need to sleep on that first...) > > > that's also not enough, because you ignore the previous chars. > ("A" < "B" vs. "AA" > "\x00B") > > i think returning memcmp() is the easiest solution, but sleeping on > that is definitely a good idea :) Hmm, yeah, indeed. If we find a non-zero byte we should return memcmp(). I'll fix it in the morning :) johannes -- 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