Johannes Berg <johannes@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Thu, 2024-05-30 at 13:49 +0000, Zong-Zhe Yang wrote: > > > > I think there are two points here. > > > > 1. the way to avoid this NULL dereference (Current patch just followed > > original logic and made it runnable on both MLD and non-MLD.) > > > > According to comments, I will change to check > ht_supported/vht_supported/has_he/has_eht. > > Then, it doesn't need to reference chanreq.oper.chan here. So, there won't be NULL > dereference. > > > > 2. the check logic when MLD > > (Current patch didn't consider this properly.) > > > > According to spec., BA agreement does once per TID and apply to all corresponding links. > > So, I am thinking maybe I check the conditions on all valid_links when MLD. > > And, only check deflink when non-MLD. > > Well, spec also requires that you have EHT (on all links) to be able to do MLO in the first place, > so you shouldn't be connected. IOW, checking one link should be sufficient? And that can even > be deflink, because for a STA that's always used as the assoc link (unlike for vif) > Then I am thinking to just check ht_supported/vht_supported/has_he/has_eht on sta deflink, whether non-MLD connection or MLD connection. Any further suggestions?
