From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mx0a-0031df01.pphosted.com (mx0a-0031df01.pphosted.com [205.220.168.131]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6C7713208 for ; Wed, 9 Jul 2025 02:47:26 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=205.220.168.131 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1752029248; cv=none; b=epSeD4t0/A+/3TPu4WZSAeS2aHASBqhx+tbaYb+1PRutUZLzB9I/HBQwxfHCnGtXJ4fdmVPvOfIcU8/ekP8BGp6Zo3/rbl+1q/ElSqlaRbYgkOlsjbpUjjeuFn1BOLeveWkaVAZ5pOme05I2raymNBTpLZ1Rvf5nJRrirEjMgFY= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1752029248; c=relaxed/simple; bh=JgjFV8ttalnLWfax5cAC90o1K+OVxDfN9tj9+H+BGBc=; h=Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version:Subject:To:Cc:References:From: In-Reply-To:Content-Type; b=ptVIbGZIFEBESzbG/AAYox1FekB+OWrwf7XSmhlkJG+//POFC+FBpsGYg1JEa59SPU+PdkQ3SmMsH5Vby5uPUSwRAdegpISefP8hooN2zG0hi5QflD4P5Kn1M6wlFvmEVazH7E5A8mYh2b9cMKTbnnfv1eyyk4st5pXLhAqoqVU= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=reject dis=none) header.from=oss.qualcomm.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=oss.qualcomm.com; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=qualcomm.com header.i=@qualcomm.com header.b=cuY2EPFY; arc=none smtp.client-ip=205.220.168.131 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=reject dis=none) header.from=oss.qualcomm.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=oss.qualcomm.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=qualcomm.com header.i=@qualcomm.com header.b="cuY2EPFY" Received: from pps.filterd (m0279867.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-0031df01.pphosted.com (8.18.1.2/8.18.1.2) with ESMTP id 568J8qS1032719 for ; Wed, 9 Jul 2025 02:47:25 GMT DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=qualcomm.com; h= cc:content-transfer-encoding:content-type:date:from:in-reply-to :message-id:mime-version:references:subject:to; s=qcppdkim1; bh= nQ/DF0j8qjp6KjrDbYkX903lF1T/sv5VpjC/UZ0thFQ=; b=cuY2EPFYWDKn49QG Up3kEHogbSBHV65Ol+DbOuy3c0lvJaa42VMjpZvE1Cw2yJNN9If+AEMthrGUBHl9 CMJYEtEXIEeAMnTEq+NN10sB0WK4BnFdYS4xu/8J45blOC/+1T75cK82+Pk+NtgF XXeUo2qAkD9SkisJkGWNOU0y2mdQbDDKKbWBK2m4PDwdR/E9EIt5C6Usdv0Y+b97 htNn0stvN9n3mavg05iUQ566WxNW0wBEWPKUns9K1rEy6xa/h81d5FoJcfr4IwiA TNj7G4Bcfunb0A+TRalZAebr0aN32KO9F5286RkoKwwPuam7SRrduuBkvMjObDh7 PKWAqA== Received: from mail-pf1-f200.google.com (mail-pf1-f200.google.com [209.85.210.200]) by mx0a-0031df01.pphosted.com (PPS) with ESMTPS id 47psrktegf-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128 verify=NOT) for ; Wed, 09 Jul 2025 02:47:25 +0000 (GMT) Received: by mail-pf1-f200.google.com with SMTP id d2e1a72fcca58-74913a4f606so4193365b3a.1 for ; Tue, 08 Jul 2025 19:47:25 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1752029244; x=1752634044; h=content-transfer-encoding:in-reply-to:from:content-language :references:cc:to:subject:user-agent:mime-version:date:message-id :x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=nQ/DF0j8qjp6KjrDbYkX903lF1T/sv5VpjC/UZ0thFQ=; b=Z99Mr4cfeO1ioQqFUSriUPBaSd+R2VVjjOC5hu0tKnQdh+KjE2NrfMqG0YgdwoqNf2 uTf3nq/HfyUn0/JQk8bRy9+EhwORfnzlFR8VOT23fRaxPuna6C08+kiKUgrDvod8LaeL YHn91YxU6MKOEsE4MEaoWJuDY6FaMZ+rQdqvF0qpxGbZtOayYaC483LoUrQjf19G6jTn u+ShT70B+p66gCjk/BHO9HPBI8wmXNhUTmMwHcH6RNtd/NkSy8lFzbNbg2KngQekmZVz u/mMMsA6HLzFAcQXAkwjMKy07UPzScC/KMHv6NMvaepctB0MPLRrpS5LPsO7hUnyXlei CmaA== X-Forwarded-Encrypted: i=1; AJvYcCXtg0A00r/eE9H8EAxL3UQwqAA2AA4pXBreC3ES7+RoVnanpgeT7VtuHDNakt2h1M9wZ2XDQT/aNuvr7uU=@vger.kernel.org X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YxyUUW+9twl/h38d1maEgTISbZbfvuO/C27S2uVS6HCT6Dn4nx6 3kZbSLCgdX0q+19htTXZwiCbUFD4/NBHql6Ltpbucs7lqwi1AsSkHF3NUxaZPOiR6KUwxEq74ZR OFBRpcR5YtKYUM2XInErbOlrPFp2Q8vR6T15PllF/OR6p1MiYC2KYVG3D6HNJjcVzmXOnXhRJf2 8= X-Gm-Gg: ASbGncsJ9we1gBHA75ahzYRykxZ0+a5KMUPkEnNXmPIjdDEB8Y5VqvCPo0/0nOZIb83 +YX9QkYvbdm25HjRjESEDRnSlRKA3Quz+g/XIBI9idAKhlBsW1ar3wvwAzJttrd3fWtjfpeAR0K h7IE92GTBVcGE6tIWfpLyreJHBdfjRfXQiemT0dM9UNbHAjslgST5+R2egXMHlag5ONbZlH/xcv b3mSi/zR7wfM7jjvIMhtZzMzPzuXbcqxx2A++RGXIsQz041ptegqUA/3AjNJh2lMnHqTxsoCEO4 HUWBGu1neIxFxilJ/U7n8zFBoyQN/qgY+EUynplAGUc4+JmmPHnseQ9efIdIhQ== X-Received: by 2002:a05:6a00:c84:b0:748:eb38:8830 with SMTP id d2e1a72fcca58-74ea6652bb4mr1477304b3a.13.1752029244439; Tue, 08 Jul 2025 19:47:24 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IH4f2L3r+oNT/avXH/4ZfezYoJMBm/VekozQ6XrcYIynsKjsadJJ4UbsxMUYMB1n2pUGbU6Zw== X-Received: by 2002:a05:6a00:c84:b0:748:eb38:8830 with SMTP id d2e1a72fcca58-74ea6652bb4mr1477281b3a.13.1752029243986; Tue, 08 Jul 2025 19:47:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.29.88] ([49.37.212.249]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id d2e1a72fcca58-74ce43d4f1asm12802173b3a.161.2025.07.08.19.47.22 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 08 Jul 2025 19:47:23 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <114409da-5d1e-40ed-aa8e-3bcb769ac0a1@oss.qualcomm.com> Date: Wed, 9 Jul 2025 08:17:20 +0530 Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Subject: Re: [PATCH wireless-next v3] wifi: mac80211: consider links for validating SCAN_FLAG_AP in scan request during MLO To: Johannes Berg Cc: linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org References: <20250625-fix_scan_ap_flag_requirement_during_mlo-v3-1-dca408b10ba4@oss.qualcomm.com> Content-Language: en-US From: Aditya Kumar Singh In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Proofpoint-ORIG-GUID: yaHdvESL5CzSqCJmBtSowesEvKb32tzJ X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details-Enc: AW1haW4tMjUwNzA5MDAyNCBTYWx0ZWRfX4Ee5YmSX2LE5 b+9IUQX17BDyxNwgpN4Onk4vuap5unCcCHsIDpdFM5luSgW4QCN3tZBsml6ZVX4YY0DBMPLy/Go iFdKlQvSdb8WjPJJJOyXBaNLgdUa+WQsdkbcX8h/cGjmusUxogfG5bgEKxAQUYI3GUm2+fHoZxA VqDlW1vl7eeqfTJz8IzQ4ta2MhfO1isEZTRD/Gm+5N370TKjzof77DPlZYZpOxZgZAG7jaYQ9ka NxmneSCxLOUzI2Wj2Ve+yrkEImsYhv0R9uKZeRIRds9bY5cxtAigt/3DVN8xUvyARZL+qMC+gyb hEsf8ttzvfbGHwyVNn/CdeZqqA5l5r5bdwLOTYym68q4jx3/lhorY5B92002q3ehZmzOfFTDioW +GHRlBmUY+oup3YHFsvqVo1uvnu99pX9+4mFVTphpxmTbSweFngtlRWx9LCYADTQq1IKeGf8 X-Proofpoint-GUID: yaHdvESL5CzSqCJmBtSowesEvKb32tzJ X-Authority-Analysis: v=2.4 cv=GtBC+l1C c=1 sm=1 tr=0 ts=686dd83d cx=c_pps a=mDZGXZTwRPZaeRUbqKGCBw==:117 a=mPedDPIPg4NzqpvR87qMnA==:17 a=IkcTkHD0fZMA:10 a=Wb1JkmetP80A:10 a=4ctZDmFpGKd6Wb6K1JoA:9 a=QEXdDO2ut3YA:10 a=zc0IvFSfCIW2DFIPzwfm:22 X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=baseguard engine=ICAP:2.0.293,Aquarius:18.0.1099,Hydra:6.1.7,FMLib:17.12.80.40 definitions=2025-07-09_01,2025-07-08_01,2025-03-28_01 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_notspam policy=outbound score=0 mlxscore=0 clxscore=1015 spamscore=0 adultscore=0 phishscore=0 malwarescore=0 priorityscore=1501 lowpriorityscore=0 bulkscore=0 suspectscore=0 impostorscore=0 mlxlogscore=999 classifier=spam authscore=0 authtc=n/a authcc= route=outbound adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.19.0-2505280000 definitions=main-2507090024 On 7/8/2025 4:16 PM, Johannes Berg wrote: > On Wed, 2025-06-25 at 18:31 +0530, Aditya Kumar Singh wrote: >> >> - if (ieee80211_num_beaconing_links(sdata) && >> - (!(wiphy->features & NL80211_FEATURE_AP_SCAN) || >> - !(req->flags & NL80211_SCAN_FLAG_AP))) >> - return -EOPNOTSUPP; >> + for (link_id = 0; link_id < IEEE80211_MLD_MAX_NUM_LINKS; >> + link_id++) { >> + link = sdata_dereference(sdata->link[link_id], sdata); >> + if (!link) >> + continue; > > for_each_link_data() Sure. When I was writing this, this macro was not present hence did not use it. Now that it is there, I will use it. Thanks for pointing it out. > >> + >> + /* if the link is not beaconing, ignore it */ >> + if (!sdata_dereference(link->u.ap.beacon, sdata)) >> + continue; >> + >> + /* If we are here then at least one of the link is >> + * beaconing and since radio level information is >> + * not present or single underlying radio is present, >> + * no point in checking further and hence return if >> + * flag requirements are not met. >> + */ >> + if (wiphy->n_radio < 2) { >> + if (!(wiphy->features & NL80211_FEATURE_AP_SCAN) || >> + !(req->flags & NL80211_SCAN_FLAG_AP)) >> + return -EOPNOTSUPP; >> + >> + continue; >> + } > > Is that _really_ worth special-casing in the scan control path? It's not > like this is a performance question here. > > Maybe ieee80211_is_radio_idx_in_scan_req() shouldn't WARN_ON() then or > something, so we can reuse it. Or maybe (better?) just reorder the > checks there, if the chan_radio_idx==-1 and radio_idx==-1 would return > first, and WARN only if we found a scan channel that isn't covered by a > radio? sure reordering seems much better. Thanks for the suggestion, will change. > > And <2 seems really strange anyway, ==1 should basically never happen, > it's equivalent to ==0, as in no list of radios? That is correct. If underlying wiphy does not advertise, it would be 0. And if it advertises, ideally it should be 2 or more (otherwise why advertising?) But, there is no check for 1. So a radio can choose to advertise but keep n_radios as 1. And having n_radio 1 is also same as not advertising it. Hence to ensure these kicks in only when we know n_radios is greater than 1, < 2 is checked. Same way other two places also it is used. -- Aditya