netdev - Re: [PATCH] rtl8xxxu: Fix the handling of TX A-MPDU aggregation

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: <87k0l5e99s.fsf@codeaurora.org>
Date:   Sun, 01 Aug 2021 13:42:23 +0300
From:   Kalle Valo <kvalo@...eaurora.org>
To:     chris.chiu@...onical.com
Cc:     Jes.Sorensen@...il.com, davem@...emloft.net, kuba@...nel.org,
        code@...o-schneider.ch, linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org,
        netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] rtl8xxxu: Fix the handling of TX A-MPDU aggregation

chris.chiu@...onical.com writes:

> From: Chris Chiu <chris.chiu@...onical.com>
>
> The TX A-MPDU aggregation is not handled in the driver since the
> ieee80211_start_tx_ba_session has never been started properly.
> Start and stop the TX BA session by tracking the TX aggregation
> status of each TID. Fix the ampdu_action and the tx descriptor
> accordingly with the given TID.
>
> Signed-off-by: Chris Chiu <chris.chiu@...onical.com>
> ---
>  .../net/wireless/realtek/rtl8xxxu/rtl8xxxu.h  |  2 ++
>  .../wireless/realtek/rtl8xxxu/rtl8xxxu_core.c | 33 ++++++++++++++-----
>  2 files changed, 26 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/net/wireless/realtek/rtl8xxxu/rtl8xxxu.h b/drivers/net/wireless/realtek/rtl8xxxu/rtl8xxxu.h
> index d1a566cc0c9e..3f7ff84f2056 100644
> --- a/drivers/net/wireless/realtek/rtl8xxxu/rtl8xxxu.h
> +++ b/drivers/net/wireless/realtek/rtl8xxxu/rtl8xxxu.h
> @@ -1383,6 +1383,8 @@ struct rtl8xxxu_priv {
>  	u8 no_pape:1;
>  	u8 int_buf[USB_INTR_CONTENT_LENGTH];
>  	u8 rssi_level;
> +	bool tx_aggr_started[IEEE80211_NUM_TIDS];

Why do you use bool of arrays? That looks racy to me. Wouldn't
DECLARE_BITMAP() be safer, like tid_bitmap uses?

> +	DECLARE_BITMAP(tid_bitmap, IEEE80211_NUM_TIDS);

I would rename this to a more descriptive name, like tid_tx_operational.

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

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