linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH wireless-next 1/2] wifi: mac80211: validate SCAN_FLAG

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]

Message-ID: <26a9e68d-bce6-4bba-871d-13e2aeee3fed@oss.qualcomm.com>
Date: Tue, 13 May 2025 15:47:12 +0530
From: Aditya Kumar Singh <aditya.kumar.singh@....qualcomm.com>
To: Johannes Berg <johannes@...solutions.net>
Cc: linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH wireless-next 1/2] wifi: mac80211: validate SCAN_FLAG_AP
 in scan request during MLO

On 5/13/2025 12:47 PM, Johannes Berg wrote:
> On Tue, 2025-05-13 at 09:26 +0530, Aditya Kumar Singh wrote:
>>
>> -		if (sdata->deflink.u.ap.beacon &&
>> +		if ((sdata->deflink.u.ap.beacon ||
>> +		     ieee80211_num_beaconing_links(sdata)) &&
>>
> 
> Do we even still need the deflink check? Seems like
> num_beaconing_links() _should_ return 1 anyway even though it currently
> doesn't, and we need to fix that?

If the ieee80211_num_beaconing_links() is modified then deflink check is 
not required. Do you want to me to send a clean up for that function 
first or would take this and later the clean up part?

> 
> Also seems the VLAN carrier handling is broken.
With this patch? Or in general you are saying? HWSIM test cases seems to 
be working fine for me with this series applied. May be there is no test 
case to make it evident?

-- 
Aditya