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:   Tue, 19 Jul 2022 17:36:33 +0200
From:   Linus Lüssing <>
To:     Adrian Chadd <>,
        Linus Lüssing <>
Cc:     Johannes Berg <>,
        "David S . Miller" <>,
        Eric Dumazet <>,
        Jakub Kicinski <>,
        Paolo Abeni <>,
        Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <>,
        Kalle Valo <>, Felix Fietkau <>,
        Simon Wunderlich <>,
        Sven Eckelmann <>,
        ath10k <>,
        linux-wireless <>,
        netdev <>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mac80211: Fix wrong channel bandwidths reported for

On 19/07/2022 17:03, Adrian Chadd wrote:
> Hi!
> It's not a hardware bug. Dating back to the original AR5416 11n chip,
> most flags aren't valid for subframes in an aggregate. Only the final
> frame has valid flags. This was explicitly covered internally way back
> when.

Ah, thanks for the clarification! I see it in the datasheet for the 
QCA9531, too, now. And thanks for the confirmation, that what we are 
doing so far is not correct for ath9k.

Words 0+2 are valid for all RX descriptors, 0+2+11 valid for the last RX 
descriptor of each packet and 0-11 for the last RX descriptor of an 
aggregate or last RX descriptor of a stand-alone packet. Or in other 
words, word 4, which contains the 20 vs. 40 MHz indicator, is invalid 
for any aggregate sub-frame other than the last one. I can rename that 
in the commit message.

Another approach that also came to my mind was introducing more explicit 
flags in cfg80211.h's "struct rate_info", like a RATE_INFO_BW_UNKNOWN in 
"enum rate_info_bw" and/or RATE_INFO_FLAGS_UNKNOWN in "enum 
rate_info_flags". And setting those flags in ath9k_cmn_process_rate().

The current approach is smaller though, as it simply uses the already 
existing flags. If anyone has any preferences, please let me know.

Regards, Linus

Powered by blists - more mailing lists