On Wed, 2023-06-14 at 12:28 +0000, Greenman, Gregory wrote:
> On Wed, 2023-06-14 at 12:07 +0200, Johannes Berg wrote:
> > On Mon, 2023-06-12 at 18:51 +0300, gregory.greenman@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
> > > From: Mukesh Sisodiya <mukesh.sisodiya@xxxxxxxxx>
> > >
> > > The p2p, bss and ap vif pointers are assigned based on the mode.
> > > All pointers will not have valid value at same time and can be
> > > NULL, based on configured mode. This can lead to NULL pointer
> > > access.
> >
> > This is not true.
> >
> > > /* enable PM on bss if bss stand alone */
> > > - if (vifs->bss_active && !vifs->p2p_active && !vifs->ap_active) {
> > > + if (bss_mvmvif && vifs->bss_active && !vifs->p2p_active &&
> > > + !vifs->ap_active) {
> > >
> >
> > The pointers can only be NULL iff *_active is false, however, it may be
> > false even if the pointer is non-NULL, so it's not exactly the same.
> >
> > Probably a static checker thing that didn't understand it?
> >
> > johannes
>
> Right, so the commit message could be rephrased like this:
> "While vif pointers are protected by the corresponding "*active" fields,
> static checkers can get confused sometimes. Add an explicit check."
>
> Do you want me to resend it with the fixed commit message?
Yes please. I also delegated this and the other one to you in patchwork
again.
johannes
