From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtpo75.interia.pl (smtpo75.interia.pl [217.74.67.75]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7E7343F5BD8 for ; Mon, 27 Jul 2026 10:26:10 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=217.74.67.75 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1785147975; cv=none; b=s2yPJxhzRKpeAukTxMgvRE0IXBEjSlf7jlDT2Uf2fGzSYfnVOTUJGjMb89QBtS85FKuHC3SliWlhE7uDKBtzvZttQD+2aawBVf0zJIUW5S2kphF1fsBxD7EQhhOlXZZ9f54ghEbbkMrL+f8BZCyEGUcx8rj+yFv4FuWPff8bMhk= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1785147975; c=relaxed/simple; bh=EDGCZX/L5USTUoaVBHCMPMyVnd621+N9gstomG0BGPI=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=eHzwi+gBZORjFNBprUcfjFvnxHuiPjc//hVaAQNmJjPRh1sdA5CJ9pG5KsS3RwP1eSauSwgm5drN6B4alyC7hFOiaXUUpsOLgDAOqkRwCw08jfCXULk7f4FxqF3mdkL5H+vLshUHP9UV8TGhpcZ21CDMEo4ILLQhR4K4PSn6r7I= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=quarantine dis=none) header.from=poczta.fm; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=poczta.fm; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=poczta.fm header.i=@poczta.fm header.b=nATCzlgU; arc=none smtp.client-ip=217.74.67.75 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=quarantine dis=none) header.from=poczta.fm Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=poczta.fm Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=poczta.fm header.i=@poczta.fm header.b="nATCzlgU" Received: from nr200 (unknown [80.68.231.31]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature ECDSA (P-256) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by poczta.interia.pl (INTERIA.PL) with ESMTPSA; Mon, 27 Jul 2026 12:26:06 +0200 (CEST) Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2026 12:26:03 +0200 From: Slawomir Stepien To: Johannes Berg Cc: syzkaller-bugs@googlegroups.com, linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, syzbot@lists.linux.dev, syzbot+9bdc0c5998ab45b05030@syzkaller.appspotmail.com Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] mac80211: reject station addition if AP or MLO link is inactive Message-ID: References: <20260727074526.248393-1-sst@poczta.fm> <9a9a794ad16663cfd7a652b83455ff16156b9baa.camel@sipsolutions.net> <741854f0b9774ce2da1e5c2fb551631aa4028122.camel@sipsolutions.net> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <741854f0b9774ce2da1e5c2fb551631aa4028122.camel@sipsolutions.net> DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=poczta.fm; s=dk; t=1785147967; bh=Skv4u+Bd4Ek7vYtCitVvYMvbYFt1hE/YhDDkH3PmXjA=; h=Date:From:To:Subject:Message-ID:MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=nATCzlgUAYtZchRUgIYMxFFZy7jclJWBLGjgJHq5EkFuHm0FhlxF+KBpXyfqzRiyJ KwSreN7TLudrmnejbtKUXmmCczQjhuIakWO0vb6QiRxQtBodNHYnaNRxLz297n30l5 ck22gwzJT0FaoDPsj3hk00Xb8yHwre8FEUtetvmY= On lip 27, 2026 11:25, Johannes Berg wrote: > On Mon, 2026-07-27 at 11:22 +0200, Slawomir Stepien wrote: > > > > I think we do not have. I'm looking at the struct wireless_dev fields and I see that there is just > > info about what the configuration should be, not info about what is the current state of the device. > > I also do not see any callback in struct cfg80211_ops that might help to get such info. If I'm wrong > > then please correct my observation! > > I think we maintain wdev->links[].ap.beacon_interval? Ah: https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v7.1.4/source/net/wireless/nl80211.c#L7188 and https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v7.1.4/source/net/wireless/ap.c#L36. Ok! Let me try using that in v3 then. Thanks! > > Beside this, do we think that all devices would always need this rejection? What if firmware of > > these devices would benefit from *lack* of such rejection? Just thinking aloud, not that I know such > > devices. > > I don't think it should be legal in the userspace API, and even if they > did, we'd have to add a flag to let hostapd know about it, and then when > (probably never) we did that, we could change the checks along with the > API. Sure. If you think it should be like that I can agree, since I do not have any opinion here. -- Slawomir Stepien