linux-kernel - Re: [linuxwifi] [PATCH] net: wireless: intel: iwlwifi: dvm: fix tid mask

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]

Message-ID: <20170608074954.qihkavvqdtwn4zmp@macchiaveli>
Date:   Thu, 8 Jun 2017 09:49:54 +0200
From:   Seraphime Kirkovski <kirkseraph@...il.com>
To:     "Grumbach, Emmanuel" <emmanuel.grumbach@...el.com>
Cc:     "luca@...lho.fi" <luca@...lho.fi>,
        "Berg, Johannes" <johannes.berg@...el.com>,
        "Coelho, Luciano" <luciano.coelho@...el.com>,
        linuxwifi <linuxwifi@...el.com>,
        Kalle Valo <kvalo@...eaurora.org>,
        "open list:INTEL WIRELESS WIFI LINK (iwlwifi)" 
        <linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org>,
        "open list:NETWORKING DRIVERS" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        open list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [linuxwifi] [PATCH] net: wireless: intel: iwlwifi: dvm: fix tid
 mask

On Thu, Jun 08, 2017 at 06:31:01AM +0000, Grumbach, Emmanuel wrote:
> Hi,

Hi,

> True, OTOH we need tid to be 8 sometimes. We *just* need to make sure
> that we don't index tid_data with this. Hence I think the proper fix is:
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/net/wireless/intel/iwlwifi/dvm/tx.c b/drivers/net/wireless/intel/iwlwifi/dvm/tx.c
> index 06ac3f1..16a8646 100644
> --- a/drivers/net/wireless/intel/iwlwifi/dvm/tx.c
> +++ b/drivers/net/wireless/intel/iwlwifi/dvm/tx.c
> @@ -1190,11 +1190,11 @@ void iwlagn_rx_reply_tx(struct iwl_priv *priv, struct iwl_rx_cmd_buffer *rxb)
>                                 next_reclaimed;
>                         IWL_DEBUG_TX_REPLY(priv, "Next reclaimed packet:%d\n",
>                                                   next_reclaimed);
> +                       iwlagn_check_ratid_empty(priv, sta_id, tid);
>                 }
> 
>                 iwl_trans_reclaim(priv->trans, txq_id, ssn, &skbs);
> 
> -               iwlagn_check_ratid_empty(priv, sta_id, tid);
>                 freed = 0;
> 
>                 /* process frames */

I can confirm it works. You can add my Tested-By.

Thanks,
Seraph