Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Message-ID: <bcbeaeb1c331a5570e6ab6e03a6ce2875b43f750.camel@sipsolutions.net>
Subject: Re: Possible bug in cfg80211
From:   Johannes Berg <johannes@sipsolutions.net>
To:     Larry Finger <Larry.Finger@lwfinger.net>,
        Maxim Klimenko Sergievich <klimenkomaximsergievich@gmail.com>,
        linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org
Date:   Thu, 10 Feb 2022 21:10:17 +0100
In-Reply-To: <ba50e373-59d8-d544-e7f9-3fe2a3336056@lwfinger.net>
References: <CAEqd1ZZucLqJMEktzmnCKzwXXkswzqJNf_yr2HZV20LcWtiR6A@mail.gmail.com>
         <ba50e373-59d8-d544-e7f9-3fe2a3336056@lwfinger.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
User-Agent: Evolution 3.42.3 (3.42.3-1.fc35) 
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, 2022-02-10 at 12:54 -0600, Larry Finger wrote:
> 
> I am most concerned about that bss_entries_limit=1 option for cfg80211. Do you 
> still get the warnings logged if you eliminate that one?

Yeah that's probably the reason ...

I guess we should ignore it if it's too low to make any sense.

> I also have a question for Johannes, et al. Should the "if (WARN_ON(!oldest))" 
> in net/wireless/scan.c be a WARN_ON_ONCE()? It does not seem worthwhile to spam 
> the logs. It is clear that once this happens, it will happen again and again.
> 

Indeed, that seems reasonable. Want to send a patch?

johannes