netdev - Re: [PATCH v7 20/24] wfx: add scan.c/scan.h

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]

Date:   Fri, 01 Oct 2021 12:35:28 +0300
From:   Kalle Valo <kvalo@...eaurora.org>
To:     Jerome Pouiller <Jerome.Pouiller@...abs.com>
Cc:     linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        devel@...verdev.osuosl.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        "David S . Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        devicetree@...r.kernel.org, Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        linux-mmc@...r.kernel.org,
        Pali Rohár <pali@...nel.org>,
        Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 20/24] wfx: add scan.c/scan.h

Jerome Pouiller <Jerome.Pouiller@...abs.com> writes:

> From: Jérôme Pouiller <jerome.pouiller@...abs.com>
>
> Signed-off-by: Jérôme Pouiller <jerome.pouiller@...abs.com>

[...]

> +/* It is not really necessary to run scan request asynchronously. However,
> + * there is a bug in "iw scan" when ieee80211_scan_completed() is called before
> + * wfx_hw_scan() return
> + */
> +void wfx_hw_scan_work(struct work_struct *work)
> +{
> +	struct wfx_vif *wvif = container_of(work, struct wfx_vif, scan_work);
> +	struct ieee80211_scan_request *hw_req = wvif->scan_req;
> +	int chan_cur, ret, err;
> +
> +	mutex_lock(&wvif->wdev->conf_mutex);
> +	mutex_lock(&wvif->scan_lock);
> +	if (wvif->join_in_progress) {
> +		dev_info(wvif->wdev->dev, "abort in-progress REQ_JOIN");
> +		wfx_reset(wvif);
> +	}
> +	update_probe_tmpl(wvif, &hw_req->req);
> +	chan_cur = 0;
> +	err = 0;
> +	do {
> +		ret = send_scan_req(wvif, &hw_req->req, chan_cur);
> +		if (ret > 0) {
> +			chan_cur += ret;
> +			err = 0;
> +		}
> +		if (!ret)
> +			err++;
> +		if (err > 2) {
> +			dev_err(wvif->wdev->dev, "scan has not been able to start\n");
> +			ret = -ETIMEDOUT;
> +		}
> +	} while (ret >= 0 && chan_cur < hw_req->req.n_channels);
> +	mutex_unlock(&wvif->scan_lock);
> +	mutex_unlock(&wvif->wdev->conf_mutex);
> +	__ieee80211_scan_completed_compat(wvif->wdev->hw, ret < 0);
> +}
> +
> +int wfx_hw_scan(struct ieee80211_hw *hw, struct ieee80211_vif *vif,
> +		struct ieee80211_scan_request *hw_req)
> +{
> +	struct wfx_vif *wvif = (struct wfx_vif *)vif->drv_priv;
> +
> +	WARN_ON(hw_req->req.n_channels > HIF_API_MAX_NB_CHANNELS);
> +	wvif->scan_req = hw_req;
> +	schedule_work(&wvif->scan_work);
> +	return 0;
> +}

This scan logic looks fishy to me, but no time to investigate in detail.
Though not a blocker.

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

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