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:
> > On Tue, 2018-08-21 at 10:57 +0200, Grzegorz Duszyński wrote:
> > > 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.
> 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
