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;
From:   Kalle Valo <kvalo@kernel.org>
To:     Brian Norris <briannorris@chromium.org>
Cc:     Polaris Pi <pinkperfect2021@gmail.com>, matthewmwang@chromium.org,
        kuba@kernel.org, linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7] wifi: mwifiex: Fix OOB and integer underflow when rx
 packets
References: <20230723070741.1544662-1-pinkperfect2021@gmail.com>
        <ZMGO3r44oOtMck7S@google.com>
Date:   Thu, 27 Jul 2023 09:10:20 +0300
In-Reply-To: <ZMGO3r44oOtMck7S@google.com> (Brian Norris's message of "Wed, 26
        Jul 2023 14:23:42 -0700")
Message-ID: <87ila528c3.fsf@kernel.org>
User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/28.2 (gnu/linux)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Precedence: bulk

Brian Norris <briannorris@chromium.org> writes:

> On Sun, Jul 23, 2023 at 07:07:41AM +0000, Polaris Pi wrote:
>> Make sure mwifiex_process_mgmt_packet,
>> mwifiex_process_sta_rx_packet and mwifiex_process_uap_rx_packet,
>> mwifiex_uap_queue_bridged_pkt and mwifiex_process_rx_packet
>> not out-of-bounds access the skb->data buffer.
>> 
>> Fixes: 2dbaf751b1de ("mwifiex: report received management frames to cfg80211")
>> Signed-off-by: Polaris Pi <pinkperfect2021@gmail.com>
>> ---
>> V5: Follow chromeos comments: preserve the original flow of mwifiex_process_uap_rx_packet
>> V6: Simplify check in mwifiex_process_uap_rx_packet
>> V7: Fix drop packets issue when auotest V6, now pass manual and auto tests
>
> "auto tests" isn't clear to anyone not familiar with Chromium stuff.
> It'd be courteous to at least make an attempt to describe what this
> means (even just, "ChromeOS WiFi test suite" or something). For the
> record, I believe that's approximately this?
>
> https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromiumos/third_party/autotest/+/HEAD/docs/wificell.md
>
> Anyway, I think the patch contents look good:
>
> Reviewed-by: Brian Norris <briannorris@chromium.org>

I'm nitpicking but now that you (Brian) are a maintainer I would prefer
that you use Acked-by instead of Reviewed-by. Patchwork shows the
statistics (A/R/T in the web ui) and then it's easy for me to see that
the patch is ready to be applied. This is for the future, no need to
change anything here.

-- 
https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/linux-wireless/list/

https://wireless.wiki.kernel.org/en/developers/documentation/submittingpatches