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