From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.remote-ip=91.218.175.204 ARC-Seal: i=1; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc20261015; a=rsa-sha256; cv=none; t=1794122713; b=O7oDgaiJty77o8pJp///UbJ5JEDuJz2wEPpL0A3zvHXzGZUGWTb8DJpCSff/IJQ2p25L c1qxDaqvByEerDMkxF/jba+UN3dhjXJbHlOQQaqeTv/sr/f9HTd54aToFnbA72Z+m2Xh8 pyQDVp7KQaswoI6IWPyTM/79d0Pd5Au8kz6I895JuRNSfeSo1Tp0Ju/3aoqvm7SNULNym wVKwwktR88KuahNz5Cg4VQdSWxd6ADpF594VPPuAZAQwoLC+X+0EoYUiRbF8DOgepE9z0 AVOtvCABRcM/7Ky1h64JQFNTx5p5IyxOAc42k85MoM/8/SatNNOL4imCcSBdzE/PiOQ== ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc20261015; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; t=1794122713; h=DMARC-Filter:X-Envelope-To:DKIM-Signature:X-Envelope-To:Received: X-Mizu-Trace-ID:X-Migadu-Flow:MIME-Version:Date:Content-Type: Content-Transfer-Encoding:From:Message-ID:TLS-Required:Subject:To: In-Reply-To:References; bh=xwe+ag+p96NPTLKz7iKx34K0hlI1qrqil1yjqdEfUJY=; b=mDQtW6JGn6PLn0y2VKY79e+cPiKjJRy8eLkOiKvZeDfFVbCDLWrPCPG6+LlxAQzhfycP fXIisrP+T2HLXMtx+AhAbaJSESqF5iP3Gf/FTJiFLj4fb14YKFB9YlcKLPzKBtPPqoSeP k1y4yKopeU5KCgR/+7IGf4Kr44gThpf366/o+NldgACd85X3yabKcFciOFMb7Dgtn8YyM Ci++oqOr3NFuMWY1D/igZa9jEJuUeRiRPNB01v/CGlLrR/Zi84FFhiBseoscnH7f79NEf Bwj8rv4bL3r+GWEE5a68E3KSDtWlhaH92CWfkVFR6gQypRDB4vPO4drHyyGJY6DjzwA== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass header.from=linux.dev; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=linux.dev; dkim=pass header.d=linux.dev header.i=@linux.dev header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=key1 header.b=GR6iA9xv; arc=none smtp.remote-ip=91.218.175.204 Received: from mta0.migadu.com (out-204.mta0.migadu.com [91.218.175.204]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature ECDSA (prime256v1) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7022F606A334 for ; Sun, 8 Nov 2026 07:25:10 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.2 smtp.subspace.kernel.org 7022F606A334 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux.dev Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=linux.dev Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key, unprotected) header.d=linux.dev header.i=@linux.dev header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=key1 header.b=GR6iA9xv X-Envelope-To: linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org DKIM-Signature: a=rsa-sha256; bh=lFZuuyRp8xyJwXS8+XkH6SERH9LQs++3bkdubhuYAaw=; c=simple/simple; d=linux.dev; h=from:to:subject:date:message-id:mime-version:content-type; s=key1; t=1794122709; v=1; x=1794727509; b=GR6iA9xvN/j49Wjn2/gxyCOxKGNU0/Iir2yngIQ0nCxSBhzrIaHmpN+IFvRW8vFuW+WroZQy JbKopFalUJnrsbQbcwdyIIiAwCVw0ktu+mYGBQb1CUMo5LmrUdqHElZigNgJuSwSiT9vVUW1yCo uiEWSwSsgXDmhsVYfbjVKaz4= X-Envelope-To: linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org Received: by smtp.migadu.com with ESMTPS id 0e4514053fceecf4; Sun, 08 Nov 2026 07:25:08 +0000 X-Mizu-Trace-ID: 0e4514053fceecf4 X-Migadu-Flow: FLOW_OUT X-Mailing-List: linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: List-Owner: Precedence: list MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Sun, 08 Nov 2026 07:25:08 +0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable From: "Luka Gejak" Message-ID: TLS-Required: No Subject: Re: [PATCH rtw-next v3 2/2] wifi: rtw88: check the C2H payload length before reading it To: "Ping-Ke Shih" , "Huihui Huang" , linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org In-Reply-To: References: <20261105125958.3891196-1-hhhuang@smu.edu.sg> <20261105125958.3891196-3-hhhuang@smu.edu.sg> Hi Ping-Ke, Just one comment on the struct idea. November 8, 2026 at 3:56 AM, "Ping-Ke Shih" wrote: >=20 >=20Huihui Huang wrote: >=20 >> >>=20+ if (rtw_c2h_payload_len(skb) < 3) { > > The 3 is because of GET_SCAN_REPORT_RETURN_CODE(). How does people unde= rstand > what 3 means? > > Maybe, we should define specific struct for status_report, like > > struct status_report { > u8 id; > u8 seq; > u8 rsvd[2] > u8 retrun_code; > }; > > struct status_report *status_report =3D get_c2h_from_skb(skb); > > if (rtw_c2h_payload_len(skb) < sizeof(*status_report)) Agreed, a struct is much easier to follow than the bare numbers. One small thing though. This struct starts at the C2H header, but rtw_c2h_payload_len() leaves the two header bytes out. So as far as I can see the check would ask for 5 payload bytes while only 3 are read, and a valid report with 3 or 4 payload bytes would be treated as too short. Maybe the struct could cover only the payload, like struct rtw_c2h_ra_rpt and struct rtw_c2h_adaptivity already do: struct rtw_c2h_scan_status_rpt { u8 rsvd[2]; u8 return_code; } __packed; Then it compares with rtw_c2h_payload_len() directly, and the same would work for the channel switch report and the two TX report formats. Best regards, Luka Gejak