Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::3:1 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::3:1;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20231021154827.1142734-1-greearb@candelatech.com>
In-Reply-To: <20231021154827.1142734-1-greearb@candelatech.com>
From:   James Dutton <james.dutton@gmail.com>
Date:   Sun, 22 Oct 2023 13:14:37 +0100
Message-ID: <CAAMvbhHqbXXgF6FpPoWnqKbn=0A0br55wLN9T1xfnwRyiwvnuw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] wifi: wireless: Fix bad memory passed in inform_single_bss_data.
To:     greearb@candelatech.com
Cc:     linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

On Sat, 21 Oct 2023 at 16:52, <greearb@candelatech.com> wrote:
>
> From: Ben Greear <greearb@candelatech.com>
>
> The sins of similar variable names and passing void pointers
> are seen again in wireless-next tree.
>
> Wrong data was passed into the rdev_inform_bss method causing
> crashes.
>

Is there any good reason for the void pointers?
The patch you propose fixes the immediate problem, but if the void
pointers were replaced with struct pointers, the compiler could catch
this sort of problem.
I imagine there could be similar confusion with this struct and
function having the same name:
0 scan.c 1999 struct cfg80211_inform_single_bss_data {
1 scan.c 2023 cfg80211_inform_single_bss_data(struct wiphy *wiphy,

Maybe renaming the following:
struct cfg80211_inform_bss *drv_data = data->drv_data;
to
struct cfg80211_inform_bss *c_inform_bss1 = data->drv_data;
would reduce the confusion.