2023-09-26 06:27:39

by Stephen Rothwell

[permalink] [raw]
Subject: linux-next: manual merge of the wireless-next tree with the wireless tree

Hi all,

Today's linux-next merge of the wireless-next tree got conflicts in:

net/mac80211/cfg.c

between commit:

31db78a4923e ("wifi: mac80211: fix potential key use-after-free")

from the wireless tree and commit:

4d3acf4311a0 ("wifi: mac80211: remove sta_mtx")

from the wireless-next tree.

I fixed it up (see below) and can carry the fix as necessary. This
is now fixed as far as linux-next is concerned, but any non trivial
conflicts should be mentioned to your upstream maintainer when your tree
is submitted for merging. You may also want to consider cooperating
with the maintainer of the conflicting tree to minimise any particularly
complex conflicts.

--
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell

diff --cc net/mac80211/cfg.c
index 0e3a1753a51c,5bc6b1329465..000000000000
--- a/net/mac80211/cfg.c
+++ b/net/mac80211/cfg.c
@@@ -565,15 -561,7 +561,11 @@@ static int ieee80211_add_key(struct wip
break;
}

- return ieee80211_key_link(key, link, sta);
+ err = ieee80211_key_link(key, link, sta);
+ /* KRACK protection, shouldn't happen but just silently accept key */
+ if (err == -EALREADY)
+ err = 0;
-
- out_unlock:
- mutex_unlock(&local->sta_mtx);
-
+ return err;
}

static struct ieee80211_key *


Attachments:
(No filename) (499.00 B)
OpenPGP digital signature

2023-09-26 10:11:05

by Stephen Rothwell

[permalink] [raw]
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the wireless-next tree with the wireless tree

Hi all,

On Tue, 26 Sep 2023 12:02:53 +1000 Stephen Rothwell <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Today's linux-next merge of the wireless-next tree got conflicts in:
>
> net/mac80211/cfg.c
>
> between commit:
>
> 31db78a4923e ("wifi: mac80211: fix potential key use-after-free")
>
> from the wireless tree and commit:
>
> 4d3acf4311a0 ("wifi: mac80211: remove sta_mtx")
>
> from the wireless-next tree.
>
> I fixed it up (see below) and can carry the fix as necessary. This
> is now fixed as far as linux-next is concerned, but any non trivial
> conflicts should be mentioned to your upstream maintainer when your tree
> is submitted for merging. You may also want to consider cooperating
> with the maintainer of the conflicting tree to minimise any particularly
> complex conflicts.

That wasn't quite right. The final resolution is below.
--
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell

diff --cc net/mac80211/cfg.c
index 0e3a1753a51c,5bc6b1329465..3e7bb883137c
--- a/net/mac80211/cfg.c
+++ b/net/mac80211/cfg.c
@@@ -472,8 -470,9 +470,10 @@@ static int ieee80211_add_key(struct wip
struct ieee80211_local *local = sdata->local;
struct sta_info *sta = NULL;
struct ieee80211_key *key;
+ int err;

+ lockdep_assert_wiphy(local->hw.wiphy);
+
if (!ieee80211_sdata_running(sdata))
return -ENETDOWN;

@@@ -565,15 -561,7 +562,11 @@@
break;
}

- return ieee80211_key_link(key, link, sta);
+ err = ieee80211_key_link(key, link, sta);
+ /* KRACK protection, shouldn't happen but just silently accept key */
+ if (err == -EALREADY)
+ err = 0;
-
- out_unlock:
- mutex_unlock(&local->sta_mtx);
-
+ return err;
}

static struct ieee80211_key *


Attachments:
(No filename) (499.00 B)
OpenPGP digital signature