> From 5a6fcc4b2a91608917697f8446ec3e10b2ce9178 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> From: Ilan Peer <ilan.peer@xxxxxxxxx>
> Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2023 00:33:04 +0300
> Subject: [PATCH] wifi: cfg80211: Fix return value in scan logic
>
> As cfg80211_parse_colocated_ap() is not expected to return a negative
> value return 0 and not a negative value if cfg80211_calc_short_ssid()
> fails.
>
> This bug was introduced in commit c8cb5b854b40f
> ('nl80211/cfg80211: support 6 GHz scanning').
>
> Signed-off-by: Ilan Peer <ilan.peer@xxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> net/wireless/scan.c | 2 +-
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
>diff --git a/net/wireless/scan.c b/net/wireless/scan.c
>index 8bf00caf5d29..0cf1ce7b6934 100644
>--- a/net/wireless/scan.c
>+++ b/net/wireless/scan.c
>@@ -657,7 +657,7 @@ static int cfg80211_parse_colocated_ap(const struct cfg80211_bss_ies *ies,
>
> ret = cfg80211_calc_short_ssid(ies, &ssid_elem, &s_ssid_tmp);
> if (ret)
>- return ret;
>+ return 0;
>
> for_each_element_id(elem, WLAN_EID_REDUCED_NEIGHBOR_REPORT,
> ies->data, ies->len) {
>--
>2.25.1
Hi Ilan,
I can confirm that this fixes the error in my dmesg.
Regards
Rudi
Tested-by: Rudi Heitbaum <rudi@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
On Mon, Jul 17, 2023 at 01:41:43PM +0000, Peer, Ilan wrote:
> Hi Sanjaya,
>
> Can you please check if the attached patch fixes your issue?
>
> Thanks in advance,
>
> Ilan.
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Bagas Sanjaya <bagasdotme@xxxxxxxxx>
> > Sent: Sunday, July 16, 2023 14:11
> > To: Rudi Heitbaum <rudi@xxxxxxxxxxxx>; Johannes Berg
> > <johannes@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; David S. Miller <davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Eric
> > Dumazet <edumazet@xxxxxxxxxx>; Jakub Kicinski <kuba@xxxxxxxxxx>;
> > Paolo Abeni <pabeni@xxxxxxxxxx>; Kirill A. Shutemov
> > <kirill.shutemov@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Michael Ellerman
> > <mpe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Andrew Morton <akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Cc: Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Linux
> > Regressions <regressions@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Linux Memory Management List
> > <linux-mm@xxxxxxxxx>; Linux Networking <netdev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Linux
> > Wireless <linux-wireless@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Subject: Fwd: mm/page_alloc.c:4453 with cfg80211_wiphy_work [cfg80211]
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > I notice a regression report on Bugzilla [1]. Quoting from it:
> >
> > > Linux version 6.5.0-rc1+ - up to
> > > 831fe284d8275987596b7d640518dddba5735f61
> > >
> > > [ 7.312665] ------------[ cut here ]------------
> > > [ 7.312671] WARNING: CPU: 8 PID: 659 at mm/page_alloc.c:4453
> > __alloc_pages+0x329/0x340
> > > [ 7.312683] Modules linked in: exfat ntfs3 bnep btusb btrtl btbcm btintel
> > btmtk bluetooth ecdh_generic ecc iwlmvm mac80211 libarc4
> > snd_hda_codec_hdmi iwlwifi snd_hda_codec_realtek
> > snd_hda_codec_generic ledtrig_audio cfg80211 snd_hda_intel
> > snd_hda_codec snd_hwdep intel_rapl_msr x86_pkg_temp_thermal
> > intel_powerclamp snd_hda_core tpm_tis intel_rapl_common
> > snd_intel_dspcfg tpm_tis_core idma64 rfkill tpm_crb tpm rng_core
> > pkcs8_key_parser fuse dmi_sysfs
> > > [ 7.312725] CPU: 8 PID: 659 Comm: kworker/8:2 Not tainted 6.5.0-rc1 #1
> > > [ 7.312729] Hardware name: Intel(R) Client Systems
> > NUC12WSKi7/NUC12WSBi7, BIOS WSADL357.0087.2023.0306.1931 03/06/2023
> > > [ 7.312731] Workqueue: events cfg80211_wiphy_work [cfg80211]
> > > [ 7.312785] RIP: 0010:__alloc_pages+0x329/0x340
> > > [ 7.312791] Code: a8 44 89 e6 89 df c6 45 c8 00 4c 89 6d b0 41 89 de e8 0b ef
> > ff ff 49 89 c7 e9 90 fe ff ff 80 e3 3f eb c0 c6 05 69 49 f7 09 01 <0f> 0b eb 98 e8
> > 1e ec 6d 01 66 66 2e 0f 1f 84 00 00 00 00 00 0f 1f
> > > [ 7.312794] RSP: 0018:ffffad8e80defbf8 EFLAGS: 00010246
> > > [ 7.312798] RAX: 0000000000000000 RBX: 0000000000040dc0 RCX:
> > 0000000000000000
> > > [ 7.312800] RDX: 0000000000000000 RSI: 0000000000000000 RDI:
> > 0000000000040dc0
> > > [ 7.312802] RBP: ffffad8e80defc50 R08: 0000000000000005 R09:
> > 0000000000000018
> > > [ 7.312804] R10: ffff938899d4a800 R11: ffff938891a9c800 R12:
> > 0000000000000034
> > > [ 7.312806] R13: 0000000000000000 R14: ffffffffc02b150d R15:
> > fffffffffffffc90
> > > [ 7.312808] FS: 0000000000000000(0000) GS:ffff938fb6600000(0000)
> > knlGS:0000000000000000
> > > [ 7.312811] CS: 0010 DS: 0000 ES: 0000 CR0: 0000000080050033
> > > [ 7.312813] CR2: 00007f540c94b710 CR3: 000000059502c000 CR4:
> > 0000000000f50ea0
> > > [ 7.312815] PKRU: 55555554
> > > [ 7.312817] Call Trace:
> > > [ 7.312819] <TASK>
> > > [ 7.312822] ? show_regs+0x69/0x80
> > > [ 7.312827] ? __warn+0x89/0x140
> > > [ 7.312833] ? __alloc_pages+0x329/0x340
> > > [ 7.312837] ? report_bug+0x15d/0x180
> > > [ 7.312843] ? handle_bug+0x42/0x80
> > > [ 7.312848] ? exc_invalid_op+0x1c/0x70
> > > [ 7.312852] ? asm_exc_invalid_op+0x1f/0x30
> > > [ 7.312857] ? cfg80211_scan_6ghz+0x12d/0xcb0 [cfg80211]
> > > [ 7.312911] ? __alloc_pages+0x329/0x340
> > > [ 7.312916] ? cfg80211_scan_6ghz+0x12d/0xcb0 [cfg80211]
> > > [ 7.312968] __kmalloc_large_node+0x7e/0x170
> > > [ 7.312973] __kmalloc+0xb9/0x120
> > > [ 7.312976] cfg80211_scan_6ghz+0x12d/0xcb0 [cfg80211]
> > > [ 7.313028] ? sched_clock_noinstr+0xd/0x20
> > > [ 7.313034] ? sched_clock_cpu+0x14/0x190
> > > [ 7.313040] ? raw_spin_rq_lock_nested+0x12/0x20
> > > [ 7.313046] ___cfg80211_scan_done+0x1e0/0x250 [cfg80211]
> > > [ 7.313099] __cfg80211_scan_done+0x23/0x30 [cfg80211]
> > > [ 7.313153] cfg80211_wiphy_work+0xae/0xd0 [cfg80211]
> > > [ 7.313201] process_one_work+0x1f1/0x3e0
> > > [ 7.313204] worker_thread+0x51/0x3f0
> > > [ 7.313207] ? _raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore+0x26/0x30
> > > [ 7.313212] ? __pfx_worker_thread+0x10/0x10
> > > [ 7.313217] kthread+0xdb/0x110
> > > [ 7.313222] ? __pfx_kthread+0x10/0x10
> > > [ 7.313226] ret_from_fork+0x3e/0x60
> > > [ 7.313229] ? __pfx_kthread+0x10/0x10
> > > [ 7.313233] ret_from_fork_asm+0x1b/0x30
> > > [ 7.313237] </TASK>
> > > [ 7.313239] ---[ end trace 0000000000000000 ]---
> >
> > See Bugzilla for the full thread.
> >
> > Anyway, I'm adding it to regzbot to make sure it doesn't fall through cracks
> > unnoticed:
> >
> > #regzbot introduced: v6.5-rc1..831fe284d82759
> > https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=217675
> >
> > Thanks.
> >
> > [1]: https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=217675
> >
> > --
> > An old man doll... just what I always wanted! - Clara
