Re: [PATCH 2.6.19-git19] BUG due to bad argument to ieee80211softmac_assoc_work

["Michael Bommarito" <michael.bommarito@gmail.com>]

Ah, apologies, it's exam time and I probably didn't look hard enough
on the mailing list before posting.  For the record though, I'd posted
the bug (no patch) to bugzilla on the 9th (although it looks as if the
email address it was assigned to is actually defunct - anyone know why
bugzilla is still using networking_wireless@kernel-bugs.osdl.org ?)
Anyway, again, sorry for the duplicate!

-Mike

On 12/14/06, Ray Lee <madrabbit@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 12/13/06, Michael Bommarito <michael.bommarito@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Sorry, realized I might not have been clear as to what I meant!  The
> > patch was attached to the bugzilla entry, but I'll attach it here as
> > well.  My description of the patch itself was really as complicated as
> > it gets too (just two lines, switch (void*)mac to
> > &mac->assoc.work.work in
> > net/ieee80211/softmac/ieee80211softmac_assoc.c), just a small bug
> > while somebody was rushing through the work/delayed_work changes.
>
> --- net/ieee80211/softmac/ieee80211softmac_assoc.c      2006-12-13
> 11:23:03.000000000 -0500
> +++ net/ieee80211/softmac/ieee80211softmac_assoc.c      2006-12-13
> 11:24:26.000000000 -0500
> @@ -167,7 +167,7 @@
>  ieee80211softmac_assoc_notify_scan(struct net_device *dev, int
> event_type, void *context)
>  {
>         struct ieee80211softmac_device *mac = ieee80211_priv(dev);
> -       ieee80211softmac_assoc_work((void*)mac);
> +       ieee80211softmac_assoc_work(&mac->associnfo.work.work);
>  }
>
>  static void
> @@ -177,7 +177,7 @@
>
>         switch (event_type) {
>         case IEEE80211SOFTMAC_EVENT_AUTHENTICATED:
> -               ieee80211softmac_assoc_work((void*)mac);
> +               ieee80211softmac_assoc_work(&mac->associnfo.work.work);
>                 break;
>         case IEEE80211SOFTMAC_EVENT_AUTH_FAILED:
>         case IEEE80211SOFTMAC_EVENT_AUTH_TIMEOUT:
>
> Good catch, though it was already caught. See:
>
>    http://lkml.org/lkml/2006/12/12/46
>
> ...for (basically) the same patch.
>
> But again, good catch :-).
>