Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-wireless+bounces-2548-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 147.75.48.161 as permitted sender) client-ip=147.75.48.161;
Message-ID: <9f8d3d53f34fba4cbacb8731bc8bb1da9bfb4d45.camel@sipsolutions.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/1] Re: wifi: mac80211: don't ask rate control with
 zero rate mask if scanning
From: Johannes Berg <johannes@sipsolutions.net>
To: Dmitry Antipov <dmantipov@yandex.ru>
Cc: Kalle Valo <kvalo@kernel.org>, linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org, 
	lvc-project@linuxtesting.org
Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2024 11:05:26 +0100
In-Reply-To: <20240125090737.49673-1-dmantipov@yandex.ru>
References: 
	<58970b94a314414402a932576ec54188c0675016.camel@sipsolutions.net>
	 <20240125090737.49673-1-dmantipov@yandex.ru>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
User-Agent: Evolution 3.50.3 (3.50.3-1.fc39) 
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0

On Thu, 2024-01-25 at 12:07 +0300, Dmitry Antipov wrote:
> Well, the literal approach to "not even use the bitrate mask for scanning=
"
> may look like the following. It fixes an original WARN_ONCE() as reported
> by syzkaller, but I'm definitely interesting on how to check whether it
> doesn't break something else.

I will always run the hwsim tests in hostap, but I'm not really
concerned it would break anything - this was never really _intended_ to
cover scanning in the first place.

johannes