linux-kernel - Re: [ 08/12] mac80211: zero initialize count field in ieee80211_tx

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Mon, 12 Mar 2012 21:25:18 +0530
From:	Mohammed Shafi Shajakhan <mohammed@....qualcomm.com>
To:	Ben Hutchings <ben@...adent.org.uk>
CC:	Willy Tarreau <w@....eu>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	<stable@...r.kernel.org>, Pavel Roskin <proski@....org>,
	"John W. Linville" <linville@...driver.com>
Subject: Re: [ 08/12] mac80211: zero initialize count field in ieee80211_tx_rate

Hi Ben,

On Monday 12 March 2012 08:53 PM, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> On Mon, 2012-03-12 at 12:22 +0530, Mohammed Shafi Shajakhan wrote:
>> Hi Willy,
>>
>>> On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 10:06:23AM +0530, Mohammed Shafi Shajakhan wrote:
>>>>> So I'm pretty sure this patch is wrong for 2.6.32; it could be
>>>>> backported but I don't think the change is necessary anyway.
>>>>
>>>> true, but i think its better to initialize the count = 0 rather than
>>>> count = 1, though the older version driver checks for rate[i].idx>= 0
>>>> in ath_rc_tx_status. while the ath_tx_status has no such iteration in
>>>> the older driver code.
>>>
>>> In practice, if the patch brings nothing and not even correctness, I'd
>>> rather drop it than make us believe that some issue is fixed. However
>>> if you think it does happen to fix a real issue in 2.6.32 (possibly
>>> combined with some other missing patch), please tell me so and I will
>>> happily undelete it.
>>>
>>
>> we can drop it. also as there was no driver code checking for
>> rate[i].count in the 2.6.32 driver. i am also not sure this fixes
>> something in 2.6.32 but the patch itself is correct.
> [...]
>
> Please read and answer the *whole* of my earlier message.  The later
> code in the rate_control_get_rate() function in 2.6.32 does appear to
> depend on .count = 1, and there may be code elsewhere that does so too.
>

are you referring to those code in tx.c ieee80211_tx_h_rate_control. 
sorry if i had again missed something.

-- 
thanks,
shafi
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/