From: quic_zijuhu <quic_zijuhu@quicinc.com>
To: Johannes Berg <johannes@sipsolutions.net>, <davem@davemloft.net>,
<edumazet@google.com>, <kuba@kernel.org>, <pabeni@redhat.com>,
<emmanuel.grumbach@intel.com>
Cc: <linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org>, <netdev@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 2/2] net: rfkill: Fix a logic error within rfkill_set_hw_state_reason()
Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2024 17:43:33 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <b8610296-f8cf-4b61-9b64-ffb52b7ab251@quicinc.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <b3e0a55f0680b590537133bfb02cd1bbfd61a56e.camel@sipsolutions.net>
On 6/12/2024 4:18 PM, Johannes Berg wrote:
> On Fri, 2024-06-07 at 22:40 +0800, Zijun Hu wrote:
>> Kernel API rfkill_set_hw_state_reason() wrongly gets previous block state
>> by using its parameter @reason as reason mask.
>
> Using reason as a mask is perfectly valid.
>
> And checking that the bit changed also seems valid.
>
i don't think so as explained below.
let us assume @rfkill->hard_block_reasons has value
RFKILL_HARD_BLOCK_SIGNAL which means block state before
__rfkill_set_sw_state(..., true, RFKILL_HARD_BLOCK_NOT_OWNER) is invoked.
@prev should mean previous block state, @prev will have false based on
current logic, it is wrong since rfkill have block state before the call.
> We might want to not schedule the worker if it's not needed, but that's
> a different issue, I don't see a real bug here?
>
the worker will be unneccessarily scheduled for above example based on
current logic even if the rfkill always stay in block state.
> johannes
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2024-06-12 9:44 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2024-06-07 14:40 [PATCH v1 0/2] net: rfkill: Fix 2 bugs within rfkill_set_hw_state_reason() Zijun Hu
2024-06-07 14:40 ` [PATCH v1 1/2] net: rfkill: Fix a wrongly handling error case Zijun Hu
2024-06-12 8:15 ` Johannes Berg
2024-06-12 10:12 ` quic_zijuhu
2024-06-12 10:14 ` Johannes Berg
2024-06-07 14:40 ` [PATCH v1 2/2] net: rfkill: Fix a logic error within rfkill_set_hw_state_reason() Zijun Hu
2024-06-12 8:18 ` Johannes Berg
2024-06-12 9:43 ` quic_zijuhu [this message]
2024-06-12 10:10 ` Johannes Berg
2024-06-12 10:11 ` Johannes Berg
2024-06-12 10:18 ` Johannes Berg
2024-06-12 10:35 ` quic_zijuhu
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=b8610296-f8cf-4b61-9b64-ffb52b7ab251@quicinc.com \
--to=quic_zijuhu@quicinc.com \
--cc=davem@davemloft.net \
--cc=edumazet@google.com \
--cc=emmanuel.grumbach@intel.com \
--cc=johannes@sipsolutions.net \
--cc=kuba@kernel.org \
--cc=linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=pabeni@redhat.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox