Skip to contentSkip to conversation

Suspicious code in halbtc8821a1ant driver

rtlwifi-btcoex Gustavo A. R. Silva 2 participants 2 messages Apr 5, 2018

Subsystems (2)
lore
Share & tools
lore
#0 lore raw

Hi all,

While doing some static analysis I came across the following piece of code at drivers/net/wireless/realtek/rtlwifi/btcoexist/halbtc8821a1ant.c:1581:

1581 static void btc8821a1ant_act_bt_sco_hid_only_busy(struct btc_coexist *btcoexist,
1582 u8 wifi_status)
1583 {
1584 /* tdma and coex table */
1585 btc8821a1ant_ps_tdma(btcoexist, NORMAL_EXEC, true, 5);
1586
1587 if (BT_8821A_1ANT_WIFI_STATUS_NON_CONNECTED_ASSO_AUTH_SCAN ==
1588 wifi_status)
1589 btc8821a1ant_coex_table_with_type(btcoexist, NORMAL_EXEC, 1);
1590 else
1591 btc8821a1ant_coex_table_with_type(btcoexist, NORMAL_EXEC, 1);
1592 }

The issue here is that the code for both branches of the if-else statement is identical.

The if-else was introduced a year ago in this commit c6821613e653

I wonder if an argument should be changed in any of the calls to btc8821a1ant_coex_table_with_type?

What do you think?

Thanks
--
Gustavo

#1 lore raw
Quoted 18 lines · Gustavo A. R. Silva

Hi all,

While doing some static analysis I came across the following piece of code at drivers/net/wireless/realtek/rtlwifi/btcoexist/halbtc8821a1ant.c:1581:

1581 static void btc8821a1ant_act_bt_sco_hid_only_busy(struct btc_coexist *btcoexist, 1582                                                   u8 wifi_status) 1583 {
1584         /* tdma and coex table */
1585         btc8821a1ant_ps_tdma(btcoexist, NORMAL_EXEC, true, 5); 1586
1587         if (BT_8821A_1ANT_WIFI_STATUS_NON_CONNECTED_ASSO_AUTH_SCAN == 1588             wifi_status)
1589                 btc8821a1ant_coex_table_with_type(btcoexist, NORMAL_EXEC, 1); 1590         else
1591                 btc8821a1ant_coex_table_with_type(btcoexist, NORMAL_EXEC, 1); 1592 }

Quoted 8 lines

The issue here is that the code for both branches of the if-else statement is identical.

The if-else was introduced a year ago in this commit c6821613e653

I wonder if an argument should be changed in any of the calls to btc8821a1ant_coex_table_with_type?

It looks weird. Since we're in spring vacation, I'll check my colleague next Monday.

PK