linux-kernel - Re: PROBLEM: 5.3.0-rc* causes iwlwifi failure

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:   Wed, 21 Aug 2019 08:04:14 +0300
From:   Luciano Coelho <luciano.coelho@...el.com>
To:     Stuart Little <achirvasub@...il.com>
Cc:     Serge Belyshev <belyshev@...ni.sinp.msu.ru>,
        Johannes Berg <johannes.berg@...el.com>,
        Emmanuel Grumbach <emmanuel.grumbach@...el.com>,
        kernel list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Intel Linux Wireless <linuxwifi@...el.com>,
        linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org,
        Haim Dreyfuss <haim.dreyfuss@...el.com>
Subject: Re: PROBLEM: 5.3.0-rc* causes iwlwifi failure

On Tue, 2019-08-20 at 19:37 -0400, Stuart Little wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 20, 2019 at 01:45:37PM +0300, Luciano Coelho wrote:
> > I'll have to look into all NIC/FW-version combinations that we have
> > and
> > update the iwl_mvm_sar_geo_support() function accordingly, which
> > is,
> > BTW, the easier place for you to change if you want to workaround
> > the
> > issue.
> 
> Thanks!
> 
> I didn't quite know how to interpret this suggestion (i.e. what the
> change should be), so I was poking around in there out of curiosity.
> One simple-minded thing that worked was to just pretend that that
> function always returns false:
> 
> --- cut here ---
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/net/wireless/intel/iwlwifi/mvm/fw.c
> b/drivers/net/wireless/intel/iwlwifi/mvm/fw.c
> index 5de54d1559dd..8c0160e5588f 100644
> --- a/drivers/net/wireless/intel/iwlwifi/mvm/fw.c
> +++ b/drivers/net/wireless/intel/iwlwifi/mvm/fw.c
> @@ -925,7 +925,7 @@ int iwl_mvm_get_sar_geo_profile(struct iwl_mvm
> *mvm)
>                 .data = { data },
>         };
>  
> -       if (!iwl_mvm_sar_geo_support(mvm))
> +       /*if (!iwl_mvm_sar_geo_support(mvm))*/
>                 return -EOPNOTSUPP;
>  
>         ret = iwl_mvm_send_cmd(mvm, &cmd);
> @@ -953,7 +953,7 @@ static int iwl_mvm_sar_geo_init(struct iwl_mvm
> *mvm)
>         int ret, i, j;
>         u16 cmd_wide_id =  WIDE_ID(PHY_OPS_GROUP,
> GEO_TX_POWER_LIMIT);
>  
> -       if (!iwl_mvm_sar_geo_support(mvm))
> +       /*if (!iwl_mvm_sar_geo_support(mvm))*/
>                 return 0;
>  
>         ret = iwl_mvm_sar_get_wgds_table(mvm);
> 
> --- cut here ---

Yeah, I meant more or less to return false for your NIC.  You could
have just forced that function return false.

--
Cheers,
Luca.