On 22-8-2016 15:03, Nicolas Iooss wrote:
> Hello,
>
> After I sent the following patch a few weeks ago, I have not received
> any feedback. Could you please review it and tell me what I may have
> done wrong?
Nothing. People went on vacation :-)
> Thanks,
> Nicolas
>
> On 05/08/16 22:34, Nicolas Iooss wrote:
>> The struct cfg80211_pmksa defines its bssid field as:
>>
>> const u8 *bssid;
>>
>> contrary to struct brcmf_pmksa, which uses:
>>
>> u8 bssid[ETH_ALEN];
>>
>> Therefore in brcmf_cfg80211_del_pmksa(), &pmksa->bssid takes the address
>> of this field (of type u8**), not the one of its content (which would be
>> u8*). Remove the & operator to make brcmf_dbg("%pM") and memcmp()
>> behave as expected.
>>
>> This bug have been found using a custom static checker (which checks the
>> usage of %p... attributes at build time). It has been introduced in
>> commit 6c404f34f2bd ("brcmfmac: Cleanup pmksa cache handling code"),
>> which replaced pmksa->bssid by &pmksa->bssid while refactoring the code,
>> without modifying struct cfg80211_pmksa definition.
>>
>> Fixes: 6c404f34f2bd ("brcmfmac: Cleanup pmksa cache handling code")
>> Cc: stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Ah, so you did something wrong after all :-p. The email address should
be 'stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx'.
>> Signed-off-by: Nicolas Iooss <nicolas.iooss_linux@xxxxxxx>
>> ---
>>
>> scripts/checkpatch.pl reports a warning: "Prefer ether_addr_equal() or
>> ether_addr_equal_unaligned() over memcmp()". Because some files in
>> drivers/net/wireless/broadcom/brcm80211/brcmfmac/ still use memcmp()
>> to compare addresses and because I do not know whether pmksa->bssid is
>> always aligned, I did not follow this warning.
As most of this is done in slow path, I prefer memcmp() as I do not want
to check alignment for minimal performance gain.
>> drivers/net/wireless/broadcom/brcm80211/brcmfmac/cfg80211.c | 4 ++--
>> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/net/wireless/broadcom/brcm80211/brcmfmac/cfg80211.c b/drivers/net/wireless/broadcom/brcm80211/brcmfmac/cfg80211.c
>> index 2628d5e12c64..aceab77cd95a 100644
>> --- a/drivers/net/wireless/broadcom/brcm80211/brcmfmac/cfg80211.c
>> +++ b/drivers/net/wireless/broadcom/brcm80211/brcmfmac/cfg80211.c
>> @@ -3884,11 +3884,11 @@ brcmf_cfg80211_del_pmksa(struct wiphy *wiphy, struct net_device *ndev,
>> if (!check_vif_up(ifp->vif))
>> return -EIO;
>>
>> - brcmf_dbg(CONN, "del_pmksa - PMK bssid = %pM\n", &pmksa->bssid);
>> + brcmf_dbg(CONN, "del_pmksa - PMK bssid = %pM\n", pmksa->bssid);
>>
>> npmk = le32_to_cpu(cfg->pmk_list.npmk);
>> for (i = 0; i < npmk; i++)
>> - if (!memcmp(&pmksa->bssid, &pmk[i].bssid, ETH_ALEN))
>> + if (!memcmp(pmksa->bssid, &pmk[i].bssid, ETH_ALEN))
I find '&pmk[i].bssid' confusing so maybe you could change it to
'&pmk[i].bssid[0]' or 'pmk[i].bssid' as I think these two are
essentially the same.
Regards,
Arend
>> break;
>>
>> if ((npmk > 0) && (i < npmk)) {
>>
>
