On Thu, 2023-06-22 at 18:50 +0200, Felix Fietkau wrote: > On 22.06.23 18:41, Johannes Berg wrote: > > On Thu, 2023-06-22 at 18:25 +0200, Felix Fietkau wrote: > > > On 22.06.23 18:07, Johannes Berg wrote: > > > > On Thu, 2023-06-22 at 18:05 +0200, Felix Fietkau wrote: > > > > > Since AP_VLAN interfaces are not pushed to the driver, > > > > > > > > > That's a mac80211 thing though. > > > > > > > > > the driver should not > > > > > be expected to register iftype data for them. > > > > > Map them to the regular AP iftype on lookup. > > > > > > > > And this is in cfg80211 - not sure that seems right? > > > > > > > > OTOH I'd expect no callers with VLAN here, it doesn't really make sense > > > > since they're not a standalone mode that actually has HE/EHT, but still, > > > > seems odd this way? > > > > > > > > What's actually calling it? I'm guessing somewhere in mac80211? > > > > > > Yes, I guess only mac80211 is affected. I put in the cfg80211 prefix > > > because that's what the header file belongs to. > > > > > > I made the patch in response to this: > > > https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/linux-wireless/patch/20230605152141.17434-4-shayne.chen@xxxxxxxxxxxx/ > > > > OK, sure, that also doesn't really make sense. > > > > > I found that there are several calls to ieee80211_get_he_iftype_cap and > > > ieee80211_get_eht_iftype_cap, which could be affected by this issue. > > > I thought dealing with this in a single place would be better than playing > > > whac-a-mole by fixing it at the call sites. > > > > > > > I replaced almost all of them with ieee80211_get_he_iftype_cap_vif() so > > it shouldn't be that bad? Looks like I forgot some though. > > I guess one advantage in using my fix would be that it's way easier to > backport. > How about using my fix initially (with a changed prefix if you prefer), > and then replace it once the call sites have been switched over to > ieee80211_get_he_iftype_cap_vif? > Actually, I don't even mind the fix itself that much, I just think the description is a bit misleading :-) How about just describing it as something like "AP_VLAN is virtual so it doesn't really exist as a type for capabilities; surely AP was intended"? I can kind of see how this might happen too, you have a STA, check the interface, etc. johannes
