[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <6f4037b4-8084-4e1d-b339-274e25f6d317@quicinc.com>
Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2024 18:30:15 +0800
From: Kang Yang <quic_kangyang@...cinc.com>
To: Baichuan Qi <zghbqbc@...il.com>, <markus.elfring@....de>
CC: <ath11k@...ts.infradead.org>, <jjohnson@...nel.org>, <kvalo@...nel.org>,
<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] wifi: ath11k: Fix NULL pointer check in
ath11k_ce_rx_post_pipe()
On 11/27/2024 5:43 PM, Baichuan Qi wrote:
> Fix the NON-NULL check by changing the OR (||) to AND (&&),
> ensuring that the function only proceeds when both `dest_ring`
> and `status_ring` are NON-NULL.
>
> The current implementation of `ath11k_ce_rx_post_pipe` checks for
> NON-NULL of either `dest_ring` or `status_ring` using a
> logical OR (||). However, both rings, especially `dest_ring`,
> should be ensured to be NON-NULL in this function.
> If only one of the rings is valid, such as `dest_ring` is NULL
> and `status_ring` is NON-NULL, the subsequent call to
> `ath11k_ce_rx_buf_enqueue_pipe()` will access the NULL pointer,
> resulting in a driver crash.
>
> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/ath11k/a9ccc947-20b2-4322-84e5-c96aaa604e63@web.de
> Fixes: d5c65159f289 ("ath11k: driver for Qualcomm IEEE 802.11ax devices")
> Signed-off-by: Baichuan Qi <zghbqbc@...il.com>
> ---
So this is version 3, please remember adding you version change here🙂:
v3: add link URL.
v2: rewrite commit message, add fix tag.
---
https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/process/submitting-patches.html#backtraces-in-commit-messages
> drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath11k/ce.c | 2 +-
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath11k/ce.c b/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath11k/ce.c
> index e66e86bdec20..cc9ad014d800 100644
> --- a/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath11k/ce.c
> +++ b/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath11k/ce.c
> @@ -324,7 +324,7 @@ static int ath11k_ce_rx_post_pipe(struct ath11k_ce_pipe *pipe)
> dma_addr_t paddr;
> int ret = 0;
>
> - if (!(pipe->dest_ring || pipe->status_ring))
> + if (!(pipe->dest_ring && pipe->status_ring))
> return 0;
>
> spin_lock_bh(&ab->ce.ce_lock);
Powered by blists - more mailing lists