linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] wifi: ath11k: fix layout of scan_flags in struct scan_req

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]

Message-ID: <871qae51wx.fsf@kernel.org>
Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2024 13:14:22 +0200
From: Kalle Valo <kvalo@...nel.org>
To: "Nicolas Escande" <nico.escande@...il.com>
Cc: "Jeff Johnson" <quic_jjohnson@...cinc.com>,
  <linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org>,  <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
  <ath11k@...ts.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] wifi: ath11k: fix layout of scan_flags in struct
 scan_req_params

"Nicolas Escande" <nico.escande@...il.com> writes:

> On Thu Nov 30, 2023 at 9:24 AM CET, Nicolas Escande wrote:
>> On Tue Nov 28, 2023 at 1:57 AM CET, Jeff Johnson wrote:
>> > On 11/27/2023 2:54 PM, Nicolas Escande wrote:
>> [...]
>> > > So either we should not use WMI_SCAN_XXX with scan_req_params.scan_flags ever
>> > > and only use the bitfield to set scan parameters or if we use WMI_SCAN_XXX with
>> > > scan_req_params.scan_flags they need to match the corresponding bitfield.
>> >
>> > IMO the correct thing to do is to remove the unions from that struct and
>> > only leave behind the bitfields and not use the WMI_SCAN_XXX masks
>> > except when filling the firmware structure.
>> >
>> > But don't spin an update to your patches until Kalle has a chance to
>> > give his opinion. I'm new to maintaining these drivers and Kalle may
>> > have a different opinion on this.
>> >
>> > /jeff
>>
>> No problem, I'll wait for Kalle's input on this before doing anything.
>> As soon as we decide which way is the right way, I'll work on this. I only care
>> that this gets resolved.
>
> Hi Kalle/Jeff,
>
> Any new input on this so I can move forward on fixing this ?

Sorry, too many patches...

> Otherwise I think I'll end up going on with Jeff's proposal of only using the
> bitfield for intra driver representation & then converting the bitfields to
> their corresponding WMI_SCAN_XXX when transmiting the req to the hw with wmi.

Yeah, I only took a quick glimpse but Jeff's proposal does make sense.

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

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