On 9/11/2024 2:36 AM, Johannes Berg wrote:
> On Tue, 2024-09-10 at 13:45 -0700, Muna Sinada wrote:
>> if (!wiphy->mbssid_max_interfaces)
>> return -EOPNOTSUPP;
>> @@ -5509,9 +5513,7 @@ static int nl80211_parse_mbssid_config(struct wiphy *wiphy,
>> return -EINVAL;
>>
>> if (tx_ifindex != dev->ifindex) {
>> - struct net_device *tx_netdev =
>> - dev_get_by_index(wiphy_net(wiphy), tx_ifindex);
>> -
>> + tx_netdev = dev_get_by_index(wiphy_net(wiphy), tx_ifindex);
>> if (!tx_netdev || !tx_netdev->ieee80211_ptr ||
>> tx_netdev->ieee80211_ptr->wiphy != wiphy ||
>> tx_netdev->ieee80211_ptr->iftype !=
>> @@ -5530,7 +5532,28 @@ static int nl80211_parse_mbssid_config(struct wiphy *wiphy,
>> return -EINVAL;
>> }
>>
>> + config->tx_link_id = 0;
>> + if (config->tx_wdev->valid_links) {
>> + if (!tb[NL80211_MBSSID_CONFIG_ATTR_TX_LINK_ID])
>> + goto err;
>> +
>> + config->tx_link_id = nla_get_u8(tb[NL80211_MBSSID_CONFIG_ATTR_TX_LINK_ID]);
>> + if (!(config->tx_wdev->valid_links & BIT(config->tx_link_id))) {
>> + err = -ENOLINK;
>> + goto err;
>> + }
>> + } else if (tb[NL80211_MBSSID_CONFIG_ATTR_TX_LINK_ID]) {
>> + goto err;
>> + }
>> +
>> return 0;
>> +
>> +err:
>> + if (tx_netdev) {
>> + config->tx_wdev = NULL;
>> + dev_put(tx_netdev);
>> + }
>
> Why not use config->tx_wdev and avoid changes around tx_netdev?
tx_netdev instance is being utilized on exisiting code to perform checks and grab its ieee80211_ptr. W are not making changes to tx_netdev itself. In this specific patch we are making changes to config->tx_wdev. I was wondering if I could get clarification on this.
>
> There's also an existing error path that does dev_put(), so you should
> unify that.
>
> johannes
Thank you,
Muna
