Peter Seiderer <ps.report@xxxxxxx> writes: > Hello Toke, > > On Sat, 2 Apr 2022 14:27:51 +0200, Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <toke@xxxxxxx> wrote: > >> From: Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <toke@xxxxxxxxxx> >> >> The ieee80211_tx_info_clear_status() helper also clears the rate counts, so >> we should restore them after clearing. However, we can get rid of the >> existing clearing of the counts of invalid rates. Rearrange the code a bit >> so the order fits the indexes, and so the setting of the count to >> hw->max_rate_tries on underrun is not immediately overridden. >> >> Cc: stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >> Reported-by: Peter Seiderer <ps.report@xxxxxxx> >> Fixes: 037250f0a45c ("ath9k: Properly clear TX status area before reporting to mac80211") >> Signed-off-by: Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <toke@xxxxxxxxxx> >> --- >> drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath9k/xmit.c | 25 +++++++++++++++---------- >> 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath9k/xmit.c b/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath9k/xmit.c >> index cbcf96ac303e..ac7efecff29c 100644 >> --- a/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath9k/xmit.c >> +++ b/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath9k/xmit.c >> @@ -2551,16 +2551,19 @@ static void ath_tx_rc_status(struct ath_softc *sc, struct ath_buf *bf, >> struct ieee80211_tx_info *tx_info = IEEE80211_SKB_CB(skb); >> struct ieee80211_hw *hw = sc->hw; >> struct ath_hw *ah = sc->sc_ah; >> - u8 i, tx_rateindex; >> + u8 i, tx_rateindex, tries[IEEE80211_TX_MAX_RATES]; >> + >> + tx_rateindex = ts->ts_rateindex; >> + WARN_ON(tx_rateindex >= hw->max_rates); >> + >> + for (i = 0; i < tx_rateindex; i++) >> + tries[i] = tx_info->status.rates[i].count; >> >> ieee80211_tx_info_clear_status(tx_info); >> >> if (txok) >> tx_info->status.ack_signal = ts->ts_rssi; >> >> - tx_rateindex = ts->ts_rateindex; >> - WARN_ON(tx_rateindex >= hw->max_rates); >> - >> if (tx_info->flags & IEEE80211_TX_CTL_AMPDU) { >> tx_info->flags |= IEEE80211_TX_STAT_AMPDU; >> >> @@ -2569,6 +2572,14 @@ static void ath_tx_rc_status(struct ath_softc *sc, struct ath_buf *bf, >> tx_info->status.ampdu_len = nframes; >> tx_info->status.ampdu_ack_len = nframes - nbad; >> >> + for (i = 0; i < tx_rateindex; i++) >> + tx_info->status.rates[i].count = tries[i]; >> + >> + tx_info->status.rates[tx_rateindex].count = ts->ts_longretry + 1; >> + >> + for (i = tx_rateindex + 1; i < hw->max_rates; i++) >> + tx_info->status.rates[i].idx = -1; >> + >> if ((ts->ts_status & ATH9K_TXERR_FILT) == 0 && >> (tx_info->flags & IEEE80211_TX_CTL_NO_ACK) == 0) { >> /* >> @@ -2591,12 +2602,6 @@ static void ath_tx_rc_status(struct ath_softc *sc, struct ath_buf *bf, >> hw->max_rate_tries; >> } > > The full lines above read: > > 2597 if (unlikely(ts->ts_flags & (ATH9K_TX_DATA_UNDERRUN | > 2598 ATH9K_TX_DELIM_UNDERRUN)) && > 2599 ieee80211_is_data(hdr->frame_control) && > 2600 ah->tx_trig_level >= sc->sc_ah->config.max_txtrig_level ) > 2601 tx_info->status.rates[tx_rateindex].count = > 2602 hw->max_rate_tries; > 2603 } > > So this patch fixes by drive-by a overwrite of > tx_info->status.rates[tx_rateindex].count... Yeah, that was intentional; the setting of tx_info->status.rates[tx_rateindex].count you quoted never had any effect, which I'm assuming is not deliberate :) >> >> - for (i = tx_rateindex + 1; i < hw->max_rates; i++) { >> - tx_info->status.rates[i].count = 0; >> - tx_info->status.rates[i].idx = -1; >> - } >> - >> - tx_info->status.rates[tx_rateindex].count = ts->ts_longretry + 1; >> } >> >> static void ath_tx_processq(struct ath_softc *sc, struct ath_txq *txq) > > Otherwise looks good ;-), would like to give a Reviewed-by/Tested-by but still > affected by the underlying ieee80211_tx_info status vs. rate_driver_data overwrite > as mentioned in the other thread (see [1])... No worries, I'll respin with a fix for that as well (as soon as I figure out the right way to fix it), so just wait until v2 and give that a spin instead :) -Toke