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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Thu, 8 Jun 2017 08:31:02 +0000
From:   "Grumbach, Emmanuel" <emmanuel.grumbach@...el.com>
To:     Seraphime Kirkovski <kirkseraph@...il.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.

Patch in review in our internal tree. It'll be upstreamed through the regular process.
Thanks for your report and debug work.