On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 10:29:19AM +0300, Kalle Valo wrote:
> On 08/20/2012 10:13 AM, Johannes Berg wrote:
> > On Wed, 2012-08-15 at 17:15 -0700, Thomas Pedersen wrote:
> >> Don't accept WoW patterns longer than supported by firmware.
> >>
> >> Reported-by: Haijun Jin <nhjin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >> Signed-off-by: Thomas Pedersen <c_tpeder@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >> ---
> >> drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath6kl/cfg80211.c | 3 +++
> >> 1 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath6kl/cfg80211.c b/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath6kl/cfg80211.c
> >> index bd003fe..ffa18f3 100644
> >> --- a/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath6kl/cfg80211.c
> >> +++ b/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath6kl/cfg80211.c
> >> @@ -1876,6 +1876,9 @@ static int ath6kl_wow_usr(struct ath6kl *ar, struct ath6kl_vif *vif,
> >> /* Configure the patterns that we received from the user. */
> >> for (i = 0; i < wow->n_patterns; i++) {
> >>
> >> + if (wow->patterns[i].pattern_len > WOW_MASK_SIZE)
> >> + return -EINVAL;
> >> +
> >
> > No objection, but doesn't nl80211 already validate that (assuming you
> > give the right pattern_max_len, of course)?
Thanks for pointing that out. That check would be completely redundant
then.
Kalle,
Can you revert this patch? Otherwise the followup will just do the same.
> And ath6kl even uses different define pattern_max_len:
>
> wiphy->wowlan.pattern_max_len = WOW_PATTERN_SIZE;
>
> But the value is still same:
>
> #define WOW_PATTERN_SIZE 64
> #define WOW_MASK_SIZE 64
>
> Thomas, can you please check this? Do we really need two different
> defines? And which one is the correct one here?
No AFAICT there is no reason to have two different defines. I can submit
a small patch consolidating these, but it would remove the above hunk
anyway so I need to know whether you'll revert or not.
Thanks,
Thomas
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-wireless" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
