linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH wireless-next 3/3] wifi: mac80211: Allow DFS/CSA on a radio if scan is ongoing on another radio

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: <fb6cb470c66e215c0fde3652c1986d604731ac94.camel@sipsolutions.net>
Date: Fri, 16 May 2025 10:05:34 +0200
From: Johannes Berg <johannes@...solutions.net>
To: Raj Kumar Bhagat <quic_rajkbhag@...cinc.com>
Cc: linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Aditya
 Kumar Singh <aditya.kumar.singh@....qualcomm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH wireless-next 3/3] wifi: mac80211: Allow DFS/CSA on a
 radio if scan is ongoing on another radio

On Wed, 2025-05-14 at 16:58 +0530, Raj Kumar Bhagat wrote:
> 
> +static bool
> +__ieee80211_is_scan_ongoing(struct wiphy *wiphy,
> +			    struct ieee80211_local *local,
> +			    struct cfg80211_chan_def *chandef)

Any particular reason or the __ name? We usually have that for internal
locking-related things, but here doesn't matter, and there's no non-__
version either?

> +{
> +	struct cfg80211_scan_request *scan_req;
> +	int chan_radio_idx, req_radio_idx;
> +	struct ieee80211_roc_work *roc;
> +	bool ret = false;
> +
> +	if (!list_empty(&local->roc_list) || local->scanning)
> +		ret = true;
> +
> +	if (wiphy->n_radio < 2)
> +		return ret;
> +
> +	/*
> +	 * Multiple HWs are grouped under same wiphy. If not scanning then
> +	 * return now itself
> +	 */
> +	if (!ret)
> +		return ret;

I don't fully understand this logic, and certainly not the comment. You
can certainly "return false" here anyway or something. And initialize
ret = list_empty || scanning or something, the whole thing is hard to
follow?

> +	if (!list_empty(&local->roc_list)) {
> +		list_for_each_entry(roc, &local->roc_list, list) {

There's no point in checking first before iterating, it's perfectly fine
to iterate an empty list and do nothing while doing so ...

Also patch-order wise, it seems this one really should go before the
2nd?

johannes