Re: [RFC] cfg80211: let's wmm_rule be part of reg_rule structure
From: Johannes Berg <johannes@sipsolutions.net>
Date: 2018-08-21 12:43:42
On Tue, 2018-08-21 at 11:18 +0200, Stanislaw Gruszka wrote:
On Tue, Aug 21, 2018 at 10:58:33AM +0200, Johannes Berg wrote:quoted
On Tue, 2018-08-21 at 10:57 +0200, Grzegorz Duszyński wrote:quoted
I've just briefly tested it, looks like it's working! I have only remote access to my machine at the moment so it's difficult to say for sure if everything is in order. However stalls do not occur, nor there are any error/warnings anywhere.That probably just means you now have some invalid data somewhere, rather than a crash... Not sure which is better - I guess you'd rather have it not crash, and I'd rather figure out where the invalid data is coming from :)I think corruption of ieee80211_wmm_rule could came from strange pointers aritmetic and fwdb_wmm_rule can be fine.
Yes, could also be the case. I had the same suspicion really and that's why I remembered the sizeof() thing.
quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
Anyway perhaps something like this on top of RFC patch would be helpful.diff --git a/net/wireless/reg.c b/net/wireless/reg.c index eb78c34d2357..4f84a67a0959 100644 --- a/net/wireless/reg.c +++ b/net/wireless/reg.c@@ -853,6 +853,11 @@ static void set_wmm_rule(struct ieee80211_reg_rule *rrule, struct ieee80211_wmm_rule *rule = &rrule->wmm_rule; unsigned int i; + if (!valid_wmm(wmm)) { + pr_err("Invalid WMM rule\n"); + return; + }
Sure, but probably better with some actual identification, like which rule it was, and what country code, etc.? johannes