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;
Sender: Larry Finger <larry.finger@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <f2985911-19ae-dd3b-6c23-93de0c188c0e@lwfinger.net>
Date:   Thu, 10 Feb 2022 16:29:21 -0600
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/91.5.1
Subject: Re: Possible bug in cfg80211
Content-Language: en-US
To:     Johannes Berg <johannes@sipsolutions.net>,
        Maxim Klimenko Sergievich <klimenkomaximsergievich@gmail.com>,
        linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org
References: <CAEqd1ZZucLqJMEktzmnCKzwXXkswzqJNf_yr2HZV20LcWtiR6A@mail.gmail.com>
 <ba50e373-59d8-d544-e7f9-3fe2a3336056@lwfinger.net>
 <bcbeaeb1c331a5570e6ab6e03a6ce2875b43f750.camel@sipsolutions.net>
From:   Larry Finger <Larry.Finger@lwfinger.net>
In-Reply-To: <bcbeaeb1c331a5570e6ab6e03a6ce2875b43f750.camel@sipsolutions.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

On 2/10/22 14:10, Johannes Berg wrote:
> 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?

Yes, I will send a patch. I was able to duplicate the OP's warning with 
"bss_entries_limit=1 and I will be able to test for that warning.

Larry