Re: [rt2x00-users] [PATCH] compat-wireless:rt2800usb: Added rx packet length validity check
From: Stanislaw Gruszka <hidden>
Date: 2012-08-22 21:16:50
Hi Gertjan On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 10:41:42PM +0200, Gertjan van Wingerde wrote:
quoted
IIRC this is basically what I proposed, except without setting rxdesc->size, unlikely() and rx_pkt_len == 0 check. It will work as rxdesc->size will be 0. But I think it would be better, if WARNING on rt2x00lib_rxdone() will print actual corrupted size instead of 0. Having unlikely is good too - this must be unlikely situation.OK, I agree with the use of unlikely(). An rx_pkt_len of 0 doesn't seem to happen in practice, so testing for it seems superfluous, but may be providing some extra safety. Don't really care about that. I really don't think we should set rxdesc->size, as we cannot determine it. If we want to print the value, then do it in this function. Adding a hack to having it printed somewhere else doesn't seem right to me. Also, it should be an error log message, not a WARNING. There's no need to have a stack trace as the buffer is filled by HW, not by some other function. So, the use of WARNING, with its stack dumping functionality is overkill.quoted
BTW: would be good to fix reason of that corruption if possible (as long this is not a H/W or F/W bug). But for now, let just stop kernel crashing. Printing WARNING on this situation will help to identify there is something wrong if someone will observe performance problems or similar.I think this is a HW issue. As mentioned above, I believe a WARNING here is overkill, as we don't need the stack trace.
I was talking about this WARNING in rt2x00lib_rxdone() (which is not
WARN_ON() or WARN() - so no stactrace):
/*
* Check for valid size in case we get corrupted descriptor from
* hardware.
*/
if (unlikely(rxdesc.size == 0 ||
rxdesc.size > entry->queue->data_size)) {
WARNING(rt2x00dev, "Wrong frame size %d max %d.\n",
rxdesc.size, entry->queue->data_size);
dev_kfree_skb(entry->skb);
goto renew_skb;
}
I agree that using ERROR is better.
Anyway, Sergei, would you be able to modify the patch along the lines of the discussion?
I hope so :-) Thanks Stanislaw