[PATCH wireless-next] iwlwifi: iwlagn_request_scan: Fix check for NULL priv->scan_request

[PATCH wireless-next] iwlwifi: iwlagn_request_scan: Fix check for NULL priv->scan_request

[Tim Gardner]

The WARN_ON_ONCE() check for scan_request will not correctly detect
a NULL pointer for scan_type == IWL_SCAN_NORMAL. Make it explicit
that the check only applies to normal scans.

Convert WARN_ON_ONCE to WARN_ON since priv->scan_request really _can't_
be NULL for normal scans. If it is then we should emit frequent warnings.

This smatch warning led to scrutiny of iwlagn_request_scan():

drivers/net/wireless/iwlwifi/dvm/scan.c:894 iwlagn_request_scan() error: we previously assumed 'priv->scan_request' could be null (see line 792)

Cc: Johannes Berg <johannes.berg@intel.com>
Cc: Wey-Yi Guy <wey-yi.w.guy@intel.com>
Cc: Intel Linux Wireless <ilw@linux.intel.com>
Cc: "John W. Linville" <linville@tuxdriver.com>
Cc: Emmanuel Grumbach <emmanuel.grumbach@intel.com>
Cc: Don Fry <donald.h.fry@intel.com>
Cc: linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org
Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org
Signed-off-by: Tim Gardner <tim.gardner@canonical.com>
---

This patch does apply to 3.6.y, but it doesn't fix an existing
bug so I don't think it qualifies. This patch simply makes
the driver more robust for future development.

 drivers/net/wireless/iwlwifi/dvm/scan.c |    5 +++--
 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/net/wireless/iwlwifi/dvm/scan.c b/drivers/net/wireless/iwlwifi/dvm/scan.c
index bb9f625..e5cbcca 100644
--- a/drivers/net/wireless/iwlwifi/dvm/scan.c
+++ b/drivers/net/wireless/iwlwifi/dvm/scan.c
@@ -673,8 +673,9 @@ static int iwlagn_request_scan(struct iwl_priv *priv, struct ieee80211_vif *vif)
 	const u8 *ssid = NULL;
 	u8 ssid_len = 0;
 
-	if (WARN_ON_ONCE(priv->scan_request &&
-			 priv->scan_request->n_channels > MAX_SCAN_CHANNEL))
+	if (WARN_ON(priv->scan_type == IWL_SCAN_NORMAL &&
+		(!priv->scan_request ||
+		priv->scan_request->n_channels > MAX_SCAN_CHANNEL)))
 		return -EINVAL;
 
 	lockdep_assert_held(&priv->mutex);
-- 
1.7.9.5

Re: [PATCH wireless-next] iwlwifi: iwlagn_request_scan: Fix check for NULL priv->scan_request

[Johannes Berg]

> --- a/drivers/net/wireless/iwlwifi/dvm/scan.c
> +++ b/drivers/net/wireless/iwlwifi/dvm/scan.c
> @@ -673,8 +673,9 @@ static int iwlagn_request_scan(struct iwl_priv *priv, struct ieee80211_vif *vif)
>  	const u8 *ssid = NULL;
>  	u8 ssid_len = 0;
>  
> -	if (WARN_ON_ONCE(priv->scan_request &&
> -			 priv->scan_request->n_channels > MAX_SCAN_CHANNEL))
> +	if (WARN_ON(priv->scan_type == IWL_SCAN_NORMAL &&
> +		(!priv->scan_request ||
> +		priv->scan_request->n_channels > MAX_SCAN_CHANNEL)))
>  		return -EINVAL;

I'll pick it up if you fix the indentation :P

johannes

[PATCH V2 wireless-next] iwlwifi: iwlagn_request_scan: Fix check for priv->scan_request

[Tim Gardner]

The WARN_ON_ONCE() check for scan_request will not correctly detect
a NULL pointer for scan_type == IWL_SCAN_NORMAL. Make it explicit
that the check only applies to normal scans.

Convert WARN_ON_ONCE to WARN_ON since priv->scan_request really _can't_
be NULL for normal scans. If it is then we should emit frequent warnings.

This smatch warning led to scrutiny of iwlagn_request_scan():

drivers/net/wireless/iwlwifi/dvm/scan.c:894 iwlagn_request_scan() error: we previously assumed 'priv->scan_request' could be null (see line 792)

Cc: Johannes Berg <johannes.berg@intel.com>
Cc: Wey-Yi Guy <wey-yi.w.guy@intel.com>
Cc: Intel Linux Wireless <ilw@linux.intel.com>
Cc: "John W. Linville" <linville@tuxdriver.com>
Cc: Emmanuel Grumbach <emmanuel.grumbach@intel.com>
Cc: Don Fry <donald.h.fry@intel.com>
Cc: linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org
Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org
Signed-off-by: Tim Gardner <tim.gardner@canonical.com>
---

This patch does apply to 3.6.y, but it doesn't fix an existing
bug so I don't think it qualifies. This patch simply makes
the driver more robust for future development.

V2 - corrected indentation more like the rest of the source
in this file.

 drivers/net/wireless/iwlwifi/dvm/scan.c |    5 +++--
 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/net/wireless/iwlwifi/dvm/scan.c b/drivers/net/wireless/iwlwifi/dvm/scan.c
index bb9f625..fe91c5a 100644
--- a/drivers/net/wireless/iwlwifi/dvm/scan.c
+++ b/drivers/net/wireless/iwlwifi/dvm/scan.c
@@ -673,8 +673,9 @@ static int iwlagn_request_scan(struct iwl_priv *priv, struct ieee80211_vif *vif)
 	const u8 *ssid = NULL;
 	u8 ssid_len = 0;
 
-	if (WARN_ON_ONCE(priv->scan_request &&
-			 priv->scan_request->n_channels > MAX_SCAN_CHANNEL))
+	if (WARN_ON(priv->scan_type == IWL_SCAN_NORMAL &&
+		    (!priv->scan_request ||
+		    priv->scan_request->n_channels > MAX_SCAN_CHANNEL)))
 		return -EINVAL;
 
 	lockdep_assert_held(&priv->mutex);
-- 
1.7.9.5

Re: [PATCH V2 wireless-next] iwlwifi: iwlagn_request_scan: Fix check for priv->scan_request

[Johannes Berg]

On Fri, 2012-12-07 at 06:28 -0700, Tim Gardner wrote:
> The WARN_ON_ONCE() check for scan_request will not correctly detect
> a NULL pointer for scan_type == IWL_SCAN_NORMAL. Make it explicit
> that the check only applies to normal scans.
> 
> Convert WARN_ON_ONCE to WARN_ON since priv->scan_request really _can't_
> be NULL for normal scans. If it is then we should emit frequent warnings.
> 
> This smatch warning led to scrutiny of iwlagn_request_scan():
> 
> drivers/net/wireless/iwlwifi/dvm/scan.c:894 iwlagn_request_scan() error: we previously assumed 'priv->scan_request' could be null (see line 792)
> 
> Cc: Johannes Berg <johannes.berg@intel.com>
> Cc: Wey-Yi Guy <wey-yi.w.guy@intel.com>
> Cc: Intel Linux Wireless <ilw@linux.intel.com>
> Cc: "John W. Linville" <linville@tuxdriver.com>
> Cc: Emmanuel Grumbach <emmanuel.grumbach@intel.com>
> Cc: Don Fry <donald.h.fry@intel.com>
> Cc: linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org
> Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org
> Signed-off-by: Tim Gardner <tim.gardner@canonical.com>
> ---
> 
> This patch does apply to 3.6.y, but it doesn't fix an existing
> bug so I don't think it qualifies. This patch simply makes
> the driver more robust for future development.
> 
> V2 - corrected indentation more like the rest of the source
> in this file.

Thanks, I've picked it up now, adding one space in the condition
still :)
It's in my internal tree for now, so it'll be a few days until it
trickles out to iwlwifi-next.

johannes