From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from sipsolutions.net (s3.sipsolutions.net [168.119.38.16]) (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 CC0034B4027; Wed, 7 Oct 2026 14:55:14 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=168.119.38.16 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1791384918; cv=none; b=obcboxQkLW2phqGM2SgHap/VaCfMuWpNPZvaEr2VHR7CgoTv1xiLUWuehUJRQHumTV3HKQSi0Bun6yFu1R4PF9aDAVyWgMbACKOqZ0EburbprY9U0QF6GaHsMHVWpoWO3FlN4iPpjgs34sCY+i5bzA6XTQptierx7uO6sshoiCw= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1791384918; c=relaxed/simple; bh=jRuZf2Z9vpenxDb+GYJexrqjYoXsd4bLd8+09fF67OA=; h=Message-ID:Subject:From:To:Cc:Date:In-Reply-To:References: Content-Type:MIME-Version; b=rT3hg3laK9CWeH7dqPPjm04T/unBDiAnG8v246vzTIz88xX73EYPkjlGkCTZTsfT4deQt8IPgsh2wsY2QPhu3FSrsZDVb10pcL0bVZXEYwdXiXmZg18zORP3RcM3tEbyRldc+Yb8L5LUG81lCmqc+HHj16kuk1DXKCH/JckJeUs= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=permerror header.from=sipsolutions.net; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=sipsolutions.net; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=sipsolutions.net header.i=@sipsolutions.net header.b=ei/vZLNJ; arc=none smtp.client-ip=168.119.38.16 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=permerror header.from=sipsolutions.net Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=sipsolutions.net Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=sipsolutions.net header.i=@sipsolutions.net header.b="ei/vZLNJ" DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=sipsolutions.net; s=mail; h=MIME-Version:Content-Transfer-Encoding: Content-Type:References:In-Reply-To:Date:Cc:To:From:Subject:Message-ID:Sender :Reply-To:Content-ID:Content-Description:Resent-Date:Resent-From:Resent-To: Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID; bh=7efoYhAx0UinMkFbLmi5X6yxMmqYY3kQVGPcfxylJ5g=; t=1791384914; x=1792594514; b=ei/vZLNJ1qd9NalPYT4ZRmxVmMTz56qqRgmYYgdhpdpycS1 pYdhjHXhFrTqi6orFLVcdQ/6g3eHZbYXm5acqkMhGR4UXtEMRSRtjbCk0gJiKPtGJJaK2k7TlxC6X Yt/B0T1mZFadoFrE7LzK4xDtn1BHy5vuKn3ve2a4lz7yU3vhyLvEZuvMQ3bqRnzoMS5AGmkWwQCHN zbNaBZdpeEIqm1zXYcZUCpBoSs7UnNT7dM1Rj0urzwgQBrc+bOtFmUKn4hmoQF8BAeFDwBNHBNxXn f1iHIo1ssoXaFNWqtJtJKuQQC3ROPql3Bun58FTBAGiuVeEWjRkoGrOkjEvAUIWw==; Received: by sipsolutions.net with esmtpsa (TLS1.3:ECDHE_X25519__ECDSA_SECP256R1_SHA256__AES_256_GCM:256) (Exim 4.98.2) (envelope-from ) id 1xET30-00000008AQM-32Ya; Wed, 07 Oct 2026 16:55:10 +0200 Message-ID: <16aa99921c4e92e8d4da3c84aacbec2e673666aa.camel@sipsolutions.net> Subject: Re: [PATCH] wifi: nl80211: don't WARN on a missing self-managed regdom From: Johannes Berg To: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Fran=E7ois?= Roux Cc: Diederik de Haas , Emmanuel Grumbach , linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Date: Wed, 07 Oct 2026 16:55:09 +0200 In-Reply-To: <20261006161744.3804-1-franzelfranzel@gmail.com> (sfid-20261006_181759_239008_AC7457D2) References: <20261006161744.3804-1-franzelfranzel@gmail.com> (sfid-20261006_181759_239008_AC7457D2) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable User-Agent: Evolution 3.60.2 (3.60.2-2.fc44) Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-malware-bazaar: not-scanned On Tue, 2026-10-06 at 18:17 +0200, Fran=C3=A7ois Roux wrote: > nl80211_get_reg_do() has a WARN_ON() for a self-managed wiphy without a > private regdomain. Userspace can trigger it with a plain > NL80211_CMD_GET_REG request. >=20 > Drivers can register such a wiphy first and set its regdomain later. > ath12k, for example, calls ieee80211_register_hw() and only then applies > the regdomain with ath12k_regd_update(). iwd queries the regdomain of a > new wiphy as soon as it shows up, so it can hit that window at boot: >=20 > WARNING: net/wireless/nl80211.c:10828 at nl80211_get_reg_do+0x1d0/0x1fc= [cfg80211], CPU#5: iwd/721 I'm not a fan of this, I think the drivers should have the regdom ready. > The same trace has been reported with an Intel BE200 (iwlwifi). I _thought_ we fixed that issue. Anyway I think we need to fix the bugs, not paper over them. If it comes to it we can even put a WARN_ON there to reject wiphy registration w/o a regdomain. There should be one. As it is, iwd will get empty data or something, that makes no sense. johannes