Return-path: Received: from wa-out-1112.google.com ([209.85.146.183]:1377 "EHLO wa-out-1112.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754204AbYETNol (ORCPT ); Tue, 20 May 2008 09:44:41 -0400 Received: by wa-out-1112.google.com with SMTP id j37so2369882waf.23 for ; Tue, 20 May 2008 06:44:40 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <1ba2fa240805200644o34ec17f5h32224e921a77702d@mail.gmail.com> (sfid-20080520_154454_877198_9E6488DF) Date: Tue, 20 May 2008 16:44:40 +0300 From: "Tomas Winkler" To: "Johannes Berg" Subject: Re: [PATCHv5] mac80211: fix NULL pointer dereference in ieee80211_compatible_rates Cc: "Helmut Schaa" , "John Linville" , "Larry Finger" , linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org In-Reply-To: <1211290714.6252.93.camel@johannes.berg> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 References: <20080520095637.2cq5p5ohhc8440o4@imap.suse.de> <1ba2fa240805200554w9354d14v9abc70f676540b9b@mail.gmail.com> <1211288251.6252.86.camel@johannes.berg> <1ba2fa240805200611o7c221c86na2c627242a2ce67@mail.gmail.com> <1211289769.6252.90.camel@johannes.berg> <1ba2fa240805200633y6730a1e3ufbc0adfedd3f8243@mail.gmail.com> <1211290714.6252.93.camel@johannes.berg> Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Tue, May 20, 2008 at 4:38 PM, Johannes Berg wrote: > >> > Thing is, I'm not totally convinced it is wrong to the code while it may >> > or may not be wrong... >> >> Doesn't should be bss pinned int he bss list if you are associating to >> it. If it's not there you don't have access to it's info It looks very >> wrong to me. > > Well, yes, it is a bit odd. > >> > I think this patch should go in first as it >> > actually fixes the oops, and then we can discuss the merits of adding a >> > warning there separately. Maybe after we look a bit at the code and try >> > to figure out whether it can still happen after that patch from >> > Abhijeet. >> >> I'm not sure if this patch is complete without this warning. What is >> in the else statement is a hack and it should be obvious. > > Considering that the message won't help us at all, why bother? We know > it's triggering, we know this might be a problem, and we know we can > only solve it by auditing the code. So why add a message that will get > us countless emails/complaints from people we cannot do anything about > anyway without doing the audit? As I understand it's not easily reproducible so you need reference point in the trace when it happens. I'm not sure what your debug techniques are, though. Tomas > johannes >