From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from rtits2.realtek.com.tw (rtits2.realtek.com [211.75.126.72]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3491740D56E; Tue, 30 Jun 2026 00:27:23 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=211.75.126.72 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1782779246; cv=none; b=TbyafB4X0gDHPCWBJ6KxOAZTB0iSRX9KNPR4Nn7UGjflx0JFaNV9BEIfNbYL4ZlTMnCz13+M3Ic391/uBdN2UbJQ79n0PhG3a2wdTAjf6OtZ7T8zCztwbmT1BKZrhKOt3PsVwGDFkGVxZAHbD7mDb5wYhw0e+H1iIWitAPnLoXM= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1782779246; c=relaxed/simple; bh=8wAVPdwj84X4xW0CMXEYhBKS2xEvjo34oyTEbv6ljf8=; h=From:To:CC:Subject:Date:Message-ID:References:In-Reply-To: Content-Type:MIME-Version; b=P38YMcHN8hk3zJFe80BX8Qxd7KPOI92rj+I+Uv0YwkEytVl/+OuNx97sfR2v0nIFKT78vxddpVAUDRKiMd44NrVanURcOJY6KfmeLkhdQ1F5Jit9BFlurEMeoaYDV9CNVYE7lVzI9LgyqlhBlv56+F9bxZ5d/SSOwuCXv1O6ohI= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=realtek.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=realtek.com; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=realtek.com header.i=@realtek.com header.b=d2NwCBZA; arc=none smtp.client-ip=211.75.126.72 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=realtek.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=realtek.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=realtek.com header.i=@realtek.com header.b="d2NwCBZA" X-SpamFilter-By: ArmorX SpamTrap 5.80 with qID 65U0R3W804004176, This message is accepted by code: ctloc85258 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=realtek.com; s=dkim; t=1782779224; bh=8wAVPdwj84X4xW0CMXEYhBKS2xEvjo34oyTEbv6ljf8=; h=From:To:CC:Subject:Date:Message-ID:References:In-Reply-To: Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; b=d2NwCBZAgx/QAp2aKtCe72ZMobwB7pyhx93CPJIdGDskDZDDPoBpRjH/OFKYwJgvB N3aP3HgJYmAe/Fs46TXqOPDRMn8JSnDzGrwMnI1bk+KX7h6TXCdHhLWb6KUVd60zAn 9N0Xqo0w/0FI75q7V2kKGcFL0EM2gyTLuwA3+LsoFVO5RL3bAmbqXLUMnDobOw5Tan QiTrvdSbhSN7YPDr9RiLB5dn3GTYE/1tgVFtBj7az8NNYM5Gbn8HK6Kk4R936eUJ8E //ti0QetVM0OxbrONgFyJZRwoKhfOGALeCeqF2MJV7+FV2S6ev97tC5dlmSKUX+GxF 57kQMI/NV9AZg== Received: from mail.realtek.com (rtkexhmbs02.realtek.com.tw[172.21.6.41]) by rtits2.realtek.com.tw (8.15.2/3.29/5.94) with ESMTPS id 65U0R3W804004176 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=FAIL); Tue, 30 Jun 2026 08:27:03 +0800 Received: from RTKEXHMBS06.realtek.com.tw (10.21.1.56) by RTKEXHMBS02.realtek.com.tw (172.21.6.41) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.2.2562.17; Tue, 30 Jun 2026 08:27:04 +0800 Received: from RTKEXHMBS06.realtek.com.tw ([::1]) by RTKEXHMBS06.realtek.com.tw ([fe80::e6fd:5a3f:8946:92c4%10]) with mapi id 15.02.2562.017; Tue, 30 Jun 2026 08:27:04 +0800 From: Ping-Ke Shih To: Dmitry Morgun CC: "linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "lvc-project@linuxtesting.org" Subject: RE: [PATCH rtw-next v3] wifi: rtw89: check return values in rtw89_ops_start_ap() Thread-Topic: [PATCH rtw-next v3] wifi: rtw89: check return values in rtw89_ops_start_ap() Thread-Index: AQHdB6yGBat2UlXDIU6MC6TToLZCtrZWPqYg Date: Tue, 30 Jun 2026 00:27:04 +0000 Message-ID: References: <20260629094452.8709-1-d.morgun@ispras.ru> In-Reply-To: <20260629094452.8709-1-d.morgun@ispras.ru> Accept-Language: en-US, zh-TW Content-Language: zh-TW Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Dmitry Morgun wrote: > Subject: [PATCH rtw-next v3] wifi: rtw89: check return values in rtw89_op= s_start_ap() Patch is fine. But I don't remember why this is v3. Can you point out v1 and v2? > Several functions called in rtw89_ops_start_ap() may fail to allocate > skb or fail to send H2C command to firmware, returning -ENOMEM or an > error code. Their return values are ignored, so subsequent commands > are executed with incorrect state. >=20 > Check the return values and propagate errors. >=20 > Found by Linux Verification Center (linuxtesting.org) with SVACE. >=20 > Fixes: a52e4f2ce0f5 ("wifi: rtw89: implement ieee80211_ops::start_ap and = stop_ap") > Signed-off-by: Dmitry Morgun Acked-by: Ping-Ke Shih