From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from sipsolutions.net (s3.sipsolutions.net [168.119.38.16]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7222C1F2C58; Mon, 26 May 2025 09:56:20 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=168.119.38.16 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1748253381; cv=none; b=WMtLoyOfmWzsLyo+C9Yu0ZSenal2EkFj9TLLmMVrZy4E8kxipJNXvN33JN9tgo+YX5EFiAF3/3LMvVTo1lkk44efW9BY+1yBP/4tnU6wYrSdBonX0genblPcCMykxI1SfhOLEbkWupRMg0dWHZM4tIwCSNhqoC8um0kxYQ61waE= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1748253381; c=relaxed/simple; bh=fzYsk7ko2OmJIPwDuUnKvOTy+wKYHxqbvnzr2gbifqk=; h=Message-ID:Subject:From:To:Cc:Date:In-Reply-To:References: Content-Type:MIME-Version; b=ATFAKcZFoUNR4eQs65C6MOl8YDgqXjeSAWiVdFmuDr9x5EIGL92kAnkfD93TggbnWEGve9kLU0rapadIlD1QGwzClO5/EABO3MQHDUQC5uvReFMs4ZmWGM2jHusYQs8wsP3GjWDFucT1nh/YzbmRq14KP7e9vDHsIsSWzf4y8RU= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=sipsolutions.net; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=sipsolutions.net; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=sipsolutions.net header.i=@sipsolutions.net header.b=JLgVGVib; arc=none smtp.client-ip=168.119.38.16 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=sipsolutions.net Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=sipsolutions.net Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=sipsolutions.net header.i=@sipsolutions.net header.b="JLgVGVib" DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=sipsolutions.net; s=mail; h=MIME-Version:Content-Transfer-Encoding: Content-Type:References:In-Reply-To:Date:Cc:To:From:Subject:Message-ID:Sender :Reply-To:Content-ID:Content-Description:Resent-Date:Resent-From:Resent-To: Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID; bh=fzYsk7ko2OmJIPwDuUnKvOTy+wKYHxqbvnzr2gbifqk=; t=1748253380; x=1749462980; b=JLgVGVibH1At3CbNaQuOG47IJUVEX5LozLoZ6WbAaqqhR1v i6A1um95Z+DOZdHCYEL7MzJipj6METmKs/c6a3bYTUu2O6XTRwUBZAMIku1TNLztyCASCneu0bKG6 S63MTBoa55fMV0bMEA445/cFmCPwOKGS+gO0kNXJade7xwtcpdkEc6SSWpHAAATJ7rXc3O4aM7u2M 9amfQS7NwefrNyrD+cdNAehtg0U8NDh5dBk+1kmSE3W9fpAJ7f6qsrXRQUQE/yhW39cGdwCbGWzQm OhnSf/ZN9aLuXqu1bj6Ht5xpQxzpDMy6Esd3+UX6kFiuMbsHMRTWZHY3+8HfIRqA==; Received: by sipsolutions.net with esmtpsa (TLS1.3:ECDHE_X25519__RSA_PSS_RSAE_SHA256__AES_256_GCM:256) (Exim 4.98.2) (envelope-from ) id 1uJUZ7-0000000Dg0x-0Il1; Mon, 26 May 2025 11:56:17 +0200 Message-ID: <293fe5ea564a98113443bbe93e6022c5bb6dd747.camel@sipsolutions.net> Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] mac80211: Add null pointer check for ieee80211_link_get_chanctx() From: Johannes Berg To: Greg KH , Wentao Liang Cc: luciano.coelho@intel.com, linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, stable@vger.kernel.org Date: Mon, 26 May 2025 11:56:16 +0200 In-Reply-To: <2137c5905fc87e80698e6578ebf360be6d899f6f.camel@sipsolutions.net> References: <20250526091903.587-1-vulab@iscas.ac.cn> <2025052614-spring-ether-8d09@gregkh> <2137c5905fc87e80698e6578ebf360be6d899f6f.camel@sipsolutions.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable User-Agent: Evolution 3.54.3 (3.54.3-1.fc41) Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-malware-bazaar: not-scanned On Mon, 2025-05-26 at 11:50 +0200, Johannes Berg wrote: >=20 > I still very much disagree with you and _will_ keep adding warnings to > the wireless stack. This would be one of those places where it's totally > warranted, because it's actually impossible that this happens, for it to > something else would have to be changed to go wrong in how this is > called, for example. And come to think of it, cases like this are exactly why some people decide to crash the system on warnings. It's things that the developers thought were impossible, but should be double-checked. If we stop putting warnings on such places, then the decision to crash on warnings becomes entirely meaningless. So seems to me that just lashing out against warnings all the time is actually detrimental to the intent of such configurations? johannes