Return-path: Received: from el-out-1112.google.com ([209.85.162.182]:42373 "EHLO el-out-1112.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756149AbYETOlq (ORCPT ); Tue, 20 May 2008 10:41:46 -0400 Received: by el-out-1112.google.com with SMTP id s27so609437ele.1 for ; Tue, 20 May 2008 07:41:45 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <1ba2fa240805200741yf19929dk26d930f703b23f91@mail.gmail.com> (sfid-20080520_164149_724649_AB3C07BB) Date: Tue, 20 May 2008 17:41:43 +0300 From: "Tomas Winkler" To: "Larry Finger" Subject: Re: [PATCHv5] mac80211: fix NULL pointer dereference in ieee80211_compatible_rates Cc: "Johannes Berg" , "Helmut Schaa" , "John Linville" , linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org, "Andrew Morton" In-Reply-To: <4832D661.60902@lwfinger.net> 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> <4832D661.60902@lwfinger.net> Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Tue, May 20, 2008 at 4:47 PM, Larry Finger wrote: > 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? > > This argument could go on endlessly; however, it is clear that we need to > settle on a patch and get it upstream ASAP! Now that mainline is broken, the > urgency is _MUCH_ greater. > We've just arguing about warning message so I won't consider it blocking. Tomas