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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <87cze0kq5d.fsf@toke.dk> Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2022 12:57:34 +0200 From: Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <toke@...hat.com> To: Linus Lüssing <ll@...onwunderlich.de>, Adrian Chadd <adrian@...ebsd.org>, Linus Lüssing <linus.luessing@...3.blue> Cc: Johannes Berg <johannes.berg@...el.com>, "David S . Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>, Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>, Kalle Valo <kvalo@...nel.org>, Felix Fietkau <nbd@....name>, Simon Wunderlich <sw@...onwunderlich.de>, Sven Eckelmann <sven@...fation.org>, ath10k <ath10k@...ts.infradead.org>, linux-wireless <linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org>, netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org> Subject: Re: [PATCH] mac80211: Fix wrong channel bandwidths reported for aggregates Linus Lüssing <ll@...onwunderlich.de> writes: > 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. I have no objections to doing it in mac80211 like you're proposing here :) -Toke
Powered by blists - more mailing lists