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: <296b9aa887022258f8ec8e4f352822c24b41ab82.camel@sipsolutions.net>
Date: Tue, 13 May 2025 12:21:43 +0200
From: Johannes Berg <johannes@...solutions.net>
To: Aditya Kumar Singh <aditya.kumar.singh@....qualcomm.com>
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 Tue, 2025-05-13 at 15:47 +0530, Aditya Kumar Singh wrote:
> 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?

Given that you're targeting wireless-next for all, I guess I'd prefer
you clean up ieee80211_num_beaconing_links() first? But no strong
preferences.

> > 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?

Oh, I meant in general.

So here I looked at callers of ieee80211_num_beaconing_links(), and many
of them seemed wrong because it doesn't handle non-MLO? But now that I
look again, I'm actually wrong, it simply always returns 0 for non-MLO,
but the comparisons are for <=1 which makes that ... OK but unexpected I
guess.

But still - also unrelated to this patch - the VLAN handling here seems
wrong?

        if (ieee80211_num_beaconing_links(sdata) <= 1)
                netif_carrier_on(dev);

        list_for_each_entry(vlan, &sdata->u.ap.vlans, u.vlan.list)
                netif_carrier_on(vlan->dev);

Shouldn't that loop be inside the ieee80211_num_beaconing_links() if?
Also on the netif_carrier_off() side? At least someone was fixing VLAN
vs. MLO recently, so maybe that needs fixes too.

johannes