On Wed, 2023-11-29 at 16:48 +0800, Edward Adam Davis wrote: > On Wed, 29 Nov 2023 09:33:23 +0100, Johannes Berg wrote: > > > > > [Analysis] > > > > > When ieee80211_get_link_sband() fails to find a valid sband and first checks > > > > > for params in sta_link_apply_parameters(), it will return 0 due to new_link > > > > > being 0, which will lead to an incorrect process after sta_apply_parameters(). > > > > > > > > > > [Fix] > > > > > First obtain sband and perform a non null check before checking the params. > > > > > > > > Not sure I can even disagree with that analysis, it seems right, but ... > > > > > > > > > + if (!link || !link_sta) > > > > > + return -EINVAL; > > > > > + > > > > > + sband = ieee80211_get_link_sband(link); > > > > > + if (!sband) > > > > > + return -EINVAL; > > > > > + > > > > > /* > > > > > * If there are no changes, then accept a link that doesn't exist, > > > > > * unless it's a new link. > > > > > > > > There's a comment here which is clearly not true after this change, > > > > since you've already returned for !link_sta? > > > No, after applying my patch, it will return due to !sband. > > > > > > > Right, OK, but the way I read the comment (now) is that it wanted to > > accept it in that case? > > > > That said, I just threw the patch into our internal testing machinery > > quickly (probably has more MLO tests than upstream hostap for now), and > > it worked just fine ... > > > > Maybe we should just remove the comment? > Do you mean to delete the comments below? > 3 /* > 2 * If there are no changes, then accept a link that doesn't exist, > 1 * unless it's a new link. > 1800 */ > Right, it doesn't seem correct any more? johannes
