Samsung galaxy s3 wifi chipset broadcom limited

#Samsung galaxy s3 wifi chipset broadcom limited drivers#
#Samsung galaxy s3 wifi chipset broadcom limited driver#

You could share the blame with a failure to properly fuzz, and insufficient use of static analysis.

You could argue that's technically not saying it's the fault of C language mechanics, but I'd say that's splitting hairs at the best. Put another way - programmer's mistake for choosing to use C's language mechanics. One such aid can be choosing another programming language that doesn't share C's language mechanics. But the most careful of programmers know they'll still make mistakes, and seek out ways to aid themselves in catching those mistakes instead of hoping they can will them away. So, sure, let's tell the programmers to be more careful. Programmers use their programming languages a lot more frequently and with a lot less care. If you outfitted a police force with guns without safeties and hair-pull triggers, and you have any sanity, you're not going to be surprised if the rate of accidental discharges goes up. > Programmer's mistake for not validating data, not the fault of C language mechanics. Neither shows up in the first 50 google results, naturally.Īnd, of course, by google result 9, we're back to square one - incorrectly defining the behavior as being 'returning 0': the C89 standard, or refer to one of the free draft versions, it's of course properly documented there too. My eighth google hit for atoi finally, finally, gets it right. Tutorialspoint defines the behavior as returning 0, and fresh2refresh makes no mention of undefined behavior. > yes I'm aware that parsing a letter as an an integer is undefined behaviorĬppreference understates it has having an undefined return value, rather than undefined behavior outright: This means that the microcode is as sensitive as The hardware specs on earlier generations of hardware a competitor with a copy of that source can make a (perhaps better and improved) knockoff if they're not too worried about legal implications like, say, several dozen Chinese knockoff shops. A WiFi chipset implements a fantastically complicated protocol, and no one wants to bake that into hardware that can't be updated as bugs are found so they build relatively simple hardware, and slap a microcontroller right on the die that runs all the complicated logic. The firmware, on the other hand, is very closely held, because that's where the chip's functionality lives.

#Samsung galaxy s3 wifi chipset broadcom limited driver#

The driver is indeed 'protected' for IP-lawyer reasons they'll have it out under license to every Tom, Dick, and Jane looking to build a device with their chipset. They are in the firmware (code that runs on a little ARM core on the WiFi chip itself - also called the microcode in the biz).

#Samsung galaxy s3 wifi chipset broadcom limited drivers#

The bugs in question here are not in the drivers (the bits that run in the OS kernel on the CPU).