linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 5/5] ath10k: reduce invalid ht params rate message noise

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:   Thu, 11 Feb 2021 13:24:02 +0200
From:   Kalle Valo <kvalo@...eaurora.org>
To:     Shuah Khan <skhan@...uxfoundation.org>
Cc:     Wen Gong <wgong@...eaurora.org>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        ath10k@...ts.infradead.org, kuba@...nel.org, davem@...emloft.net
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/5] ath10k: reduce invalid ht params rate message noise

Shuah Khan <skhan@...uxfoundation.org> writes:

> On 2/10/21 1:28 AM, Kalle Valo wrote:
>> Wen Gong <wgong@...eaurora.org> writes:
>>
>>> On 2021-02-10 08:42, Shuah Khan wrote:
>>>> ath10k_mac_get_rate_flags_ht() floods dmesg with the following
>>>> messages,
>>>> when it fails to find a match for mcs=7 and rate=1440.
>>>>
>>>> supported_ht_mcs_rate_nss2:
>>>> {7,  {1300, 2700, 1444, 3000} }
>>>>
>>>> ath10k_pci 0000:02:00.0: invalid ht params rate 1440 100kbps nss 2
>>>> mcs 7
>>>>
>>>> dev_warn_ratelimited() isn't helping the noise. Use dev_warn_once()
>>>> instead.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Shuah Khan <skhan@...uxfoundation.org>
>>>> ---
>>>>   drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath10k/mac.c | 5 +++--
>>>>   1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath10k/mac.c
>>>> b/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath10k/mac.c
>>>> index 3545ce7dce0a..276321f0cfdd 100644
>>>> --- a/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath10k/mac.c
>>>> +++ b/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath10k/mac.c
>>>> @@ -8970,8 +8970,9 @@ static void ath10k_mac_get_rate_flags_ht(struct
>>>> ath10k *ar, u32 rate, u8 nss, u8
>>>>   		*bw |= RATE_INFO_BW_40;
>>>>   		*flags |= RATE_INFO_FLAGS_SHORT_GI;
>>>>   	} else {
>>>> -		ath10k_warn(ar, "invalid ht params rate %d 100kbps nss %d mcs %d",
>>>> -			    rate, nss, mcs);
>>>> +		dev_warn_once(ar->dev,
>>>> +			      "invalid ht params rate %d 100kbps nss %d mcs %d",
>>>> +			      rate, nss, mcs);
>>>>   	}
>>>>   }
>>>
>>> The {7,  {1300, 2700, 1444, 3000} } is a correct value.
>>> The 1440 is report from firmware, its a wrong value, it has fixed in
>>> firmware.
>>
>> In what version?
>>
>
> Here is the info:
>
> ath10k_pci 0000:02:00.0: qca6174 hw3.2 target 0x05030000 chip_id
> 0x00340aff sub 17aa:0827
>
> ath10k_pci 0000:02:00.0: firmware ver WLAN.RM.4.4.1-00140-QCARMSWPZ-1 
> api 6 features wowlan,ignore-otp,mfp crc32 29eb8ca1
>
> ath10k_pci 0000:02:00.0: board_file api 2 bmi_id N/A crc32 4ac0889b
>
> ath10k_pci 0000:02:00.0: htt-ver 3.60 wmi-op 4 htt-op 3 cal otp
> max-sta 32 raw 0 hwcrypto 1
>
>>> If change it to dev_warn_once, then it will have no chance to find the
>>> other wrong values which report by firmware, and it indicate
>>> a wrong value to mac80211/cfg80211 and lead "iw wlan0 station dump"
>>> get a wrong bitrate.
>>
>
> Agreed.
>
>> I agree, we should keep this warning. If the firmware still keeps
>> sending invalid rates we should add a specific check to ignore the known
>> invalid values, but not all of them.
>>
>
> Would it be helpful to adjust the default rate limits and set the to
> a higher value instead. It might be difficult to account all possible
> invalid values?
>
> Something like, ath10k_warn_ratelimited() to adjust the
>
> DEFAULT_RATELIMIT_INTERVAL and DEFAULT_RATELIMIT_BURST using
> DEFINE_RATELIMIT_STATE
>
> Let me know if you like this idea. I can send a patch in to do this.
> I will hang on to this firmware version for a little but longer, so
> we have a test case. :)

I would rather first try to fix the root cause, which is the firmware
sending invalid rates. Wen, you mentioned there's a fix in firmware. Do
you know which firmware version (and branch) has the fix?

-- 
https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/linux-wireless/list/

https://wireless.wiki.kernel.org/en/developers/documentation/submittingpatches