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 C00CF46AA72; Tue, 21 Jul 2026 15:31:46 +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=1784647908; cv=none; b=Iv9X9kqhRiP4BHuXjVAc3nKaR0Au7F8CXsa2X+P4NqhmHoWbFTChoPPdwO2p8rUIwl6IPrqcqJ7GMZ6IwPMuzu+Za5kT3/U85VPzMBYljgzX86IcooR9RlthRY/9hQGaWhXcCg8QixPdu743m6e3Wn9EoQuuD/D9agECEHPonE0= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1784647908; c=relaxed/simple; bh=b7leHrNt7HQnZJdrHy+OvMuor5X1wVjS6HQzGmh7uCA=; h=Message-ID:Subject:From:To:Cc:Date:In-Reply-To:References: Content-Type:MIME-Version; b=Z8eUJT9EsUopQ/J+Xo3LCpF4B0GvZjy7B9aQk5dM7CR5Yblr4O23HESJX86lSEZ/Ro1IwvrnAOmKvmQ+iffwLcCqNgZht5V7NQFci1p0bBIX1TogqwStO3oHws8tA/KQTR6AdavAlkxJZUGc1aSxnsEP3V62XGIUPDogzxBbtr8= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=permerror header.from=sipsolutions.net; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=sipsolutions.net; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=sipsolutions.net header.i=@sipsolutions.net header.b=ETjrctAI; 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=none 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="ETjrctAI" 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=KsLbwGn1oIwL/2R+4c5lMw+n1JqMOoF3a22gFY61ez8=; t=1784647906; x=1785857506; b=ETjrctAIL4jVsnvF1tn0d9EtUUve1mhpaeBpkJZhZ7AVfaH 35vn88MKoDmAbdLIgxQKYvvU4X9ubh0M+opZhhgtzFM069MvdTH1SrzEK0AWpPYjmaOPpXwjUHNmi qJM8pSr4UmrX11X80yIrzajwin66sYSKH75OIOJ7dUoXc+b9ZzdupA1iWAMbKAc9Jvm0Qk86JdvN0 gIrrCqGPwu9y3meVeuNJwm/v9aCjAcm/z6avcXX904jcUSdaFT18Cb7cMWjELe6QqsSyw2IZNiGFO Uo+LU17Wkkj6YkHvDoEJTB4NTvvwKVMk+Zyz06TgQ6Kzc9uruUAp7RG52G3ICdYg==; Received: by sipsolutions.net with esmtpsa (TLS1.3:ECDHE_X25519__ECDSA_SECP256R1_SHA256__AES_256_GCM:256) (Exim 4.98.2) (envelope-from ) id 1wmCRc-000000028Hq-0rqe; Tue, 21 Jul 2026 17:31:44 +0200 Message-ID: <2629d83dd460f3d9a60566f3fad975db13b045c3.camel@sipsolutions.net> Subject: Re: [PATCH] wifi: nl80211: say why the association BSS lookup failed From: Johannes Berg To: Louis Kotze Cc: linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2026 17:31:43 +0200 In-Reply-To: <20260711043432.2767225-1-loukot@gmail.com> References: <20260711043432.2767225-1-loukot@gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable User-Agent: Evolution 3.58.3 (3.58.3-1.fc43) 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 Sat, 2026-07-11 at 06:34 +0200, Louis Kotze wrote: >=20 > +/* why __cfg80211_get_bss() found no usable BSS entry */ > +#define CFG80211_BSS_MISS_EXPIRED BIT(0) > +#define CFG80211_BSS_MISS_USE_FOR BIT(1) > + > +u32 cfg80211_get_bss_miss_reasons(struct wiphy *wiphy, > + struct ieee80211_channel *channel, > + const u8 *bssid, > + const u8 *ssid, size_t ssid_len, > + enum ieee80211_bss_type bss_type, > + enum ieee80211_privacy privacy, > + u32 use_for); This seems ... messy, and also racy? I really don't like it, so you're going to have to work extra hard to convince me of it. > @@ -13068,8 +13073,23 @@ static struct cfg80211_bss *nl80211_assoc_bss(st= ruct cfg80211_registered_device > IEEE80211_BSS_TYPE_ESS, > IEEE80211_PRIVACY_ANY, > use_for); can't we just pass the info (or NULL) to __cfg80211_get_bss() directly and have that fill the right problem message there? There aren't even any callers to it outside of cfg80211, and cfg80211_get_bss() can just pass NULL. johannes