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 415673BC687 for ; Mon, 11 May 2026 09:01:42 +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=1778490104; cv=none; b=J8LLqI9SZaDz4M/2XTwEGiMt7e1H+DJjqituxbVFJnRlaQbchOPrBz5AKlOXcPcDQRGIgpLwmBBQzZkB7NqnCmUovJXYdp7gl96Z86AP22LnRF3hUcTdEB4mIK27tUgt22VEI4PYb2pBg9zDuveShgssQYpqs5iVxZFexgm4DL0= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1778490104; c=relaxed/simple; bh=ZG/2HMyNr0wdY51tJ2KpqXvxiEpNqFC3Lfbcj18O9PU=; h=Message-ID:Subject:From:To:Cc:Date:In-Reply-To:References: Content-Type:MIME-Version; b=R4023sbABdB+nd8r17BnaNARE6D4xfZOzK8SHh22qio60D28yOGf2xSY9dF0QgHYnDn/odYly3YoxpZAGYjp40JV6NxPv8Ab+2QCIo4cRl6XqOUUD2NhxonhvO+qYtZqhqq/UAuKAa5YoQE0OZ0VoblKI/x/x17tfyubd1u5NNU= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=permerror header.from=sipsolutions.net; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=sipsolutions.net; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=sipsolutions.net header.i=@sipsolutions.net header.b=XTy+D2Ki; arc=none smtp.client-ip=168.119.38.16 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=permerror header.from=sipsolutions.net Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=none 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="XTy+D2Ki" 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=ZG/2HMyNr0wdY51tJ2KpqXvxiEpNqFC3Lfbcj18O9PU=; t=1778490102; x=1779699702; b=XTy+D2KibET5dGjNTo2m9Y1K95JxuGMY56cYJ2yU1rxP0W0 FrKscJepc/ZQ/p+jug95ebdGSlhNxIbNsGbVJu+eDpDyrbeNIUxxNi0PohRDqWA0DsY5vLaVdOArV al9yXhLCAtbrLu/oGV2W1X2z7ZdEqp9JZt18Vu2DcaXmKVM/L2D3rtz584s+46YDn8Wau2z9GbP7+ zWw2clzYlpyEodfw+M2hHQQoxA1JaUpsVPRVEiwnT960OPVpiuWdzuViOI5qvXeGZjuZremKZH4Uy V9c8GavXpNpb+ErIEqOS3nXJa63kyFWUNyQCsZVkYvGq7WSiAd2a7wsxJcrs7qig==; 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 1wMMWB-0000000EdNp-39uL; Mon, 11 May 2026 11:01:39 +0200 Message-ID: <725b56f42b5fec58196e4055bccb74236145986b.camel@sipsolutions.net> Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] Fix overread in PREQ frame processing From: Johannes Berg To: Masashi Honma Cc: linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org Date: Mon, 11 May 2026 11:01:39 +0200 In-Reply-To: (sfid-20260511_105817_539632_BF024A41) References: <20260509234143.101237-1-masashi.honma@gmail.com> (sfid-20260511_105817_539632_BF024A41) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable User-Agent: Evolution 3.58.3 (3.58.3-1.fc43) 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, 2026-05-11 at 17:58 +0900, Masashi Honma wrote: > > This isn't really right since u32_field_get() exists only within > > mesh_hwmp.c ... it's probably better to modernise all this while at it: >=20 > Ah, yes. Both the build and tests passed, so I overlooked it. Yes, it would, but it's basically not self-contained. More of a code hygiene issue I guess than a real problem right now. > > and restructure the code accordingly? > > Anyway, I dunno. Maybe we should just go with your original patch for > > now. Maybe I'm also asking more of you than others because you have an > > LLM to help ;-) >=20 > If it is not urgent, I would like to proceed with the requested restructu= ring. Oh sure, as far as I'm concerned there's no urgency, I just didn't want to keep asking you to make changes too much. > Actually, I only used the LLM to find potential vulnerabilities, and I wr= ote > the code myself :) Oh OK :) Maybe we need that as a kind of Reported-by? Hmm. Or you could send a separate bug report email, say there Claude found it, and then do a Closes: link :-p johannes