On Tue, Jul 26, 2022 at 04:42:41PM +0200, Johannes Berg wrote:
> Hi Dan,
>
>
> On Tue, 2022-07-26 at 17:10 +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> > 5885 rcu_read_lock();
> > 5886 err = ieee80211_lookup_ra_sta(sdata, skb, &sta);
> >
> > For sdata->vif.type == NL80211_IFTYPE_MESH_POINT then "sta" can be NULL.
> > Smatch doesn't know the value of sdata->vif.type at this point, and even
> > if it did, then it doesn't split the return states up with enough
> > granularity for that to make a difference.
>
> Right, but that wouldn't matter anyway?
>
> > 5887 if (err) {
> > 5888 rcu_read_unlock();
> > 5889 return err;
> > 5890 }
> > 5891
> > 5892 if (!IS_ERR(sta)) {
>
> Since this is all independent of the interface type.
>
> > 5893 u16 queue = __ieee80211_select_queue(sdata, sta, skb);
> > 5894
> > 5895 skb_set_queue_mapping(skb, queue);
> > 5896 skb_get_hash(skb);
> > 5897
> > 5898 /*
> > 5899 * for MLO STA, the SA should be the AP MLD address, but
> > 5900 * the link ID has been selected already
> > 5901 */
> > --> 5902 if (sta->sta.mlo)
> >
> > Which Smatch complains about here.
>
> Makes sense, should be "if (sta && sta->sta.mlo)" then I suppose. I'm on
> vacation now, so if you want to send a patch as a reminder that'd be
> nice.
Sure. I can do that. Enjoy your vacation!
regards,
dan carpenter
