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 PHC | |
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2021 02:11:38 +0100 From: Bryan O'Donoghue <bryan.odonoghue@...aro.org> To: Benjamin Li <benl@...areup.com>, Kalle Valo <kvalo@...eaurora.org> Cc: Loic Poulain <loic.poulain@...aro.org>, linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org, "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, wcn36xx@...ts.infradead.org, linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] wcn36xx: fix RX BD rate mapping for 5GHz legacy rates On 29/10/2021 01:39, Benjamin Li wrote: > On 10/28/21 5:30 PM, Bryan O'Donoghue wrote: >> On 28/10/2021 23:31, Benjamin Li wrote: >>> - status.rate_idx >= sband->n_bitrates) { >> This fix was applied because we were getting a negative index >> >> If you want to remove that, you'll need to do something about this >> >> status.rate_idx -= 4; > > Hmm... so you're saying there's a FW bug where sometimes we get > bd->rate_id = 0-7 (leading to status.rate_idx = 0-3) on a 5GHz > channel? My memory is I saw a negative index as a result of the -4 offset but, it is quite some time ago and we have made all sorts of changes since. > static const struct wcn36xx_rate wcn36xx_rate_table[] = { > /* 11b rates */ > { 10, 0, RX_ENC_LEGACY, 0, RATE_INFO_BW_20 }, > { 20, 1, RX_ENC_LEGACY, 0, RATE_INFO_BW_20 }, > { 55, 2, RX_ENC_LEGACY, 0, RATE_INFO_BW_20 }, > { 110, 3, RX_ENC_LEGACY, 0, RATE_INFO_BW_20 }, > > /* 11b SP (short preamble) */ > { 10, 0, RX_ENC_LEGACY, RX_ENC_FLAG_SHORTPRE, RATE_INFO_BW_20 }, > { 20, 1, RX_ENC_LEGACY, RX_ENC_FLAG_SHORTPRE, RATE_INFO_BW_20 }, > { 55, 2, RX_ENC_LEGACY, RX_ENC_FLAG_SHORTPRE, RATE_INFO_BW_20 }, > { 110, 3, RX_ENC_LEGACY, RX_ENC_FLAG_SHORTPRE, RATE_INFO_BW_20 }, > > It sounds like we should WARN and drop the frame in that case. If > you agree I'll send a v2. So, Let me see if I can replicate the previous bug - tomorrow - later this morning in fact - in this timezone, and I'll get back to you. --- bod
Powered by blists - more mailing lists