[PATCH] Bluetooth: Fix Adv Monitor msft_add/remove_monitor_sync()

[PATCH] Bluetooth: Fix Adv Monitor msft_add/remove_monitor_sync()

[Manish Mandlik]

Do not call skb_pull() in msft_add_monitor_sync() as
msft_le_monitor_advertisement_cb() expects 'status' to be
part of the skb.

Same applies for msft_remove_monitor_sync().

Signed-off-by: Manish Mandlik <mmandlik@google.com>
---

 net/bluetooth/msft.c | 2 --
 1 file changed, 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/net/bluetooth/msft.c b/net/bluetooth/msft.c
index f43994523b1f..9990924719aa 100644
--- a/net/bluetooth/msft.c
+++ b/net/bluetooth/msft.c
@@ -387,7 +387,6 @@ static int msft_remove_monitor_sync(struct hci_dev *hdev,
 		return PTR_ERR(skb);
 
 	status = skb->data[0];
-	skb_pull(skb, 1);
 
 	msft_le_cancel_monitor_advertisement_cb(hdev, status, hdev->msft_opcode,
 						skb);
@@ -506,7 +505,6 @@ static int msft_add_monitor_sync(struct hci_dev *hdev,
 		return PTR_ERR(skb);
 
 	status = skb->data[0];
-	skb_pull(skb, 1);
 
 	msft_le_monitor_advertisement_cb(hdev, status, hdev->msft_opcode, skb);
 
-- 
2.36.0.512.ge40c2bad7a-goog

RE: Bluetooth: Fix Adv Monitor msft_add/remove_monitor_sync()

[bluez.test.bot]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1097 bytes --]

This is automated email and please do not reply to this email!

Dear submitter,

Thank you for submitting the patches to the linux bluetooth mailing list.
This is a CI test results with your patch series:
PW Link:https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/bluetooth/list/?series=639914

---Test result---

Test Summary:
CheckPatch                    PASS      1.54 seconds
GitLint                       PASS      0.96 seconds
SubjectPrefix                 PASS      0.87 seconds
BuildKernel                   PASS      31.03 seconds
BuildKernel32                 PASS      27.59 seconds
Incremental Build with patchesPASS      37.79 seconds
TestRunner: Setup             PASS      469.43 seconds
TestRunner: l2cap-tester      PASS      17.48 seconds
TestRunner: bnep-tester       PASS      6.09 seconds
TestRunner: mgmt-tester       PASS      100.65 seconds
TestRunner: rfcomm-tester     PASS      9.66 seconds
TestRunner: sco-tester        PASS      9.45 seconds
TestRunner: smp-tester        PASS      9.36 seconds
TestRunner: userchan-tester   PASS      6.37 seconds



---
Regards,
Linux Bluetooth

Re: [PATCH] Bluetooth: Fix Adv Monitor msft_add/remove_monitor_sync()

[Paul Menzel]

Dear Manish,


Thank you for your patch.

Am 09.05.22 um 23:05 schrieb Manish Mandlik:
> Do not call skb_pull() in msft_add_monitor_sync() as
> msft_le_monitor_advertisement_cb() expects 'status' to be
> part of the skb.

Please reflow for 75 characters per line.

> Same applies for msft_remove_monitor_sync().

Was this found by code review, or were there noticeable problems? If the 
later, please add a note, how to reproduce it.

Also, maybe also add a Fixes tag, referencing the commit introducing the 
problem.


Kind regards,

Paul


> Signed-off-by: Manish Mandlik <mmandlik@google.com>
> ---
> 
>   net/bluetooth/msft.c | 2 --
>   1 file changed, 2 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/net/bluetooth/msft.c b/net/bluetooth/msft.c
> index f43994523b1f..9990924719aa 100644
> --- a/net/bluetooth/msft.c
> +++ b/net/bluetooth/msft.c
> @@ -387,7 +387,6 @@ static int msft_remove_monitor_sync(struct hci_dev *hdev,
>   		return PTR_ERR(skb);
>   
>   	status = skb->data[0];
> -	skb_pull(skb, 1);
>   
>   	msft_le_cancel_monitor_advertisement_cb(hdev, status, hdev->msft_opcode,
>   						skb);
> @@ -506,7 +505,6 @@ static int msft_add_monitor_sync(struct hci_dev *hdev,
>   		return PTR_ERR(skb);
>   
>   	status = skb->data[0];
> -	skb_pull(skb, 1);
>   
>   	msft_le_monitor_advertisement_cb(hdev, status, hdev->msft_opcode, skb);
>   

Re: [PATCH] Bluetooth: Fix Adv Monitor msft_add/remove_monitor_sync()

[Luiz Augusto von Dentz]

Hi Manish,

On Mon, May 9, 2022 at 2:05 PM Manish Mandlik <mmandlik@google.com> wrote:
>
> Do not call skb_pull() in msft_add_monitor_sync() as
> msft_le_monitor_advertisement_cb() expects 'status' to be
> part of the skb.
>
> Same applies for msft_remove_monitor_sync().
>
> Signed-off-by: Manish Mandlik <mmandlik@google.com>
> ---
>
>  net/bluetooth/msft.c | 2 --
>  1 file changed, 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/net/bluetooth/msft.c b/net/bluetooth/msft.c
> index f43994523b1f..9990924719aa 100644
> --- a/net/bluetooth/msft.c
> +++ b/net/bluetooth/msft.c
> @@ -387,7 +387,6 @@ static int msft_remove_monitor_sync(struct hci_dev *hdev,
>                 return PTR_ERR(skb);
>
>         status = skb->data[0];
> -       skb_pull(skb, 1);
>
>         msft_le_cancel_monitor_advertisement_cb(hdev, status, hdev->msft_opcode,
>                                                 skb);
> @@ -506,7 +505,6 @@ static int msft_add_monitor_sync(struct hci_dev *hdev,
>                 return PTR_ERR(skb);
>
>         status = skb->data[0];
> -       skb_pull(skb, 1);

Well if it expects it to be part of the skb then there is no reason to
pass it as argument in addition to the skb itself.

>         msft_le_monitor_advertisement_cb(hdev, status, hdev->msft_opcode, skb);
>
> --
> 2.36.0.512.ge40c2bad7a-goog
>


-- 
Luiz Augusto von Dentz

Re: [PATCH] Bluetooth: Fix Adv Monitor msft_add/remove_monitor_sync()

[Luiz Augusto von Dentz]

Hi Manish,

On Wed, May 11, 2022 at 5:56 PM Manish Mandlik <mmandlik@google.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Luiz,
>
> On Wed, May 11, 2022 at 2:23 PM Luiz Augusto von Dentz <luiz.dentz@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Manish,
>>
>> On Mon, May 9, 2022 at 2:05 PM Manish Mandlik <mmandlik@google.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > Do not call skb_pull() in msft_add_monitor_sync() as
>> > msft_le_monitor_advertisement_cb() expects 'status' to be
>> > part of the skb.
>> >
>> > Same applies for msft_remove_monitor_sync().
>> >
>> > Signed-off-by: Manish Mandlik <mmandlik@google.com>
>> > ---
>> >
>> >  net/bluetooth/msft.c | 2 --
>> >  1 file changed, 2 deletions(-)
>> >
>> > diff --git a/net/bluetooth/msft.c b/net/bluetooth/msft.c
>> > index f43994523b1f..9990924719aa 100644
>> > --- a/net/bluetooth/msft.c
>> > +++ b/net/bluetooth/msft.c
>> > @@ -387,7 +387,6 @@ static int msft_remove_monitor_sync(struct hci_dev *hdev,
>> >                 return PTR_ERR(skb);
>> >
>> >         status = skb->data[0];
>> > -       skb_pull(skb, 1);
>> >
>> >         msft_le_cancel_monitor_advertisement_cb(hdev, status, hdev->msft_opcode,
>> >                                                 skb);
>> > @@ -506,7 +505,6 @@ static int msft_add_monitor_sync(struct hci_dev *hdev,
>> >                 return PTR_ERR(skb);
>> >
>> >         status = skb->data[0];
>> > -       skb_pull(skb, 1);
>>
>> Well if it expects it to be part of the skb then there is no reason to
>> pass it as argument in addition to the skb itself.
>
> The problem is msft_le_monitor_advertisement_cb() is invoked directly via msft_add_monitor_sync() and also from __msft_add_monitor_pattern() as a callback from hci_req_run_skb(). So, when it is invoked from hci_req_run_skb() it sends status separately as an argument along with the skb and that's why that argument is required.
>
> Looks like some parts of msft.c still use the old way i.e. hci_req_run_skb() instead of __hci_cmd_sync() after hci_sync related refactoring. I am wondering if it was left like this intentionally? If not, then we probably need to refactor msft.c to use __hci_cmd_sync() for all hci requests. In that case, I can work on refactoring and we can discard this patch altogether. Please let me know.

Yes, if you have time please convert it to use hci_sync.c since we
would like to completely deprecate/remove hci_request.c eventually, if
you think that will take some time we can perhaps merge this changes
first though.

>>
>> >         msft_le_monitor_advertisement_cb(hdev, status, hdev->msft_opcode, skb);
>> >
>> > --
>> > 2.36.0.512.ge40c2bad7a-goog
>> >
>>
>>
>> --
>> Luiz Augusto von Dentz
>
> Regards,
> Manish.



-- 
Luiz Augusto von Dentz