Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-wireless+bounces-132-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 147.75.199.223 as permitted sender) client-ip=147.75.199.223;
Precedence: bulk
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2023 23:54:17 +0100
Message-Id: <CX9YPUDTAT1N.23DMRB5O9FEAO@gmail.com>
Cc: <linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org>, <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
 <ath11k@lists.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] wifi: ath11k: fix layout of scan_flags in struct
 scan_req_params
From: "Nicolas Escande" <nico.escande@gmail.com>
To: "Jeff Johnson" <quic_jjohnson@quicinc.com>, "Kalle Valo"
 <kvalo@kernel.org>
References: <20231127180559.1696041-1-nico.escande@gmail.com>
 <bdcdbd06-e9bd-4a92-b27b-d94b2d8fb52d@quicinc.com>
In-Reply-To: <bdcdbd06-e9bd-4a92-b27b-d94b2d8fb52d@quicinc.com>

On Mon Nov 27, 2023 at 7:38 PM CET, Jeff Johnson wrote:
> On 11/27/2023 10:05 AM, Nicolas Escande wrote:
> > The is a layout mismatch between the bitfield representing scan_flags i=
n
> > struct scan_req_params & the bits as defined in the WMI_SCAN_XXX macros=
.
> > Lets fix it by making the struct match the #defines.
> >=20
> > I tried to correct it by making the struct match the #define and it=20
> > worked for WMI_SCAN_FLAG_FORCE_ACTIVE_ON_DFS / scan_f_force_active_dfs_=
chn
> > so I'm assuming this is the right thing to do.
> >=20
> > Tested-on: QCN9074 hw1.0 PCI WLAN.HK.2.7.0.1-01744-QCAHKSWPL_SILICONZ-1
> >=20
> > Signed-off-by: Nicolas Escande <nico.escande@gmail.com>
> > ---
> >  drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath11k/wmi.h | 10 +++++-----
> >  1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
> >=20
> > diff --git a/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath11k/wmi.h b/drivers/net/wirele=
ss/ath/ath11k/wmi.h
> > index 100bb816b592..0b4e6c2f7860 100644
> > --- a/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath11k/wmi.h
> > +++ b/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath11k/wmi.h
> > @@ -3348,17 +3348,17 @@ struct scan_req_params {
> >  			    scan_f_filter_prb_req:1,
> >  			    scan_f_bypass_dfs_chn:1,
> >  			    scan_f_continue_on_err:1,
> > +			    scan_f_promisc_mode:1,
> > +			    scan_f_force_active_dfs_chn:1,
> > +			    scan_f_add_tpc_ie_in_probe:1,
> > +			    scan_f_add_ds_ie_in_probe:1,
> > +			    scan_f_add_spoofed_mac_in_probe:1,
> >  			    scan_f_offchan_mgmt_tx:1,
> >  			    scan_f_offchan_data_tx:1,
> > -			    scan_f_promisc_mode:1,
> >  			    scan_f_capture_phy_err:1,
> >  			    scan_f_strict_passive_pch:1,
> >  			    scan_f_half_rate:1,
> >  			    scan_f_quarter_rate:1,
> > -			    scan_f_force_active_dfs_chn:1,
> > -			    scan_f_add_tpc_ie_in_probe:1,
> > -			    scan_f_add_ds_ie_in_probe:1,
> > -			    scan_f_add_spoofed_mac_in_probe:1,
> >  			    scan_f_add_rand_seq_in_probe:1,
> >  			    scan_f_en_ie_whitelist_in_probe:1,
> >  			    scan_f_forced:1,
>
> You are convoluting two different data structures.

So maybe I'm missing something and please correct me where I'm wrong.

> struct scan_req_params is used to represent a scan request within the
> host driver. This does not use the WMI_SCAN_XXX macros.
>

In mac.c when we start a scan with ath11k_mac_op_hw_scan() for example we f=
irst
initialize a struct scan_req_params with ath11k_wmi_start_scan_init().
ath11k_wmi_start_scan_init() by itself does use the WMI_SCAN_XXX macros

	arg->scan_flags |=3D WMI_SCAN_CHAN_STAT_EVENT;

Then later on in ath11k_mac_op_hw_scan() we either use the bitfield like wi=
th

	arg->scan_f_add_spoofed_mac_in_probe =3D 1;

or we directly modify scan_flags like with

	arg->scan_flags |=3D WMI_SCAN_FLAG_PASSIVE;

So is it not expected to use those flags there ?

> struct wmi_start_scan_cmd is used to represent the scan request command
> sent to firmware. This struct uses the WMI_SCAN_XXX macros to fill some
> members of this struct in ath11k_wmi_copy_scan_event_cntrl_flags().

Indeed ath11k_wmi_copy_scan_event_cntrl_flags() copies from struct
scan_req_params to struct wmi_start_scan_cmd but this time we do not use=20
scan_flags directly, only ever use the bitfield that is in the same union
as scan_flags

So having the bitfield out of sync does cause the struct wmi_start_scan_cmd=
 that
gets sent to the driver to not reflect the desired state set in scan_req_pa=
rams.

> So your change has no effect on the driver operation and incorrectly
> tries to foist the firmware definition upon the host internal
> representation.

So either we should not use WMI_SCAN_XXX with scan_req_params.scan_flags ev=
er
and only use the bitfield to set scan parameters or if we use WMI_SCAN_XXX =
with
scan_req_params.scan_flags they need to match the corresponding bitfield.

>
> So NAK to this patch.
>
> /jeff