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 417B52C15A5; Fri, 29 May 2026 06:20:18 +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=1780035622; cv=none; b=muCJ3qT6b92yfFojPo3ITcwnLZvT3GgeIFx0EuI+7j8ctoaGnclLy57knVsgbiYH8L3VNxNBIGFGHTzYDSDE8ysOu1B3MBODrqu0uEA1Nsm0uDSYt9Nzw5sU6zZ66L3AsdHEB/HqgINXG5GD2K5PuaQGL4qxZRk/tFVK5xeBwzQ= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1780035622; c=relaxed/simple; bh=qCaNf6MHD7X8HMRsT1uomZar47lbzVSpDYtfi0wZHX0=; h=Message-ID:Subject:From:To:Cc:Date:In-Reply-To:References: Content-Type:MIME-Version; b=Oy4z5DiFudRAW4JCUyuNka5R9ifYAMicEphl2Xgi3gMsLagvInFouLwYMOa07CxNka+xwNSWJQ+tkBgxSO/F0H+lqD/1/+ssNntRUmaBqAZ5iMBUOLxZPlDtMd4S3RyLnpb4Gia7dHO7CnqmSBSJXZKjTBb9rOfrQCYKAkYwZ2o= 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=NRDUI+Zr; 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="NRDUI+Zr" 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=qCaNf6MHD7X8HMRsT1uomZar47lbzVSpDYtfi0wZHX0=; t=1780035619; x=1781245219; b=NRDUI+Zr67ZPvJuByjaC9QiC3n4FZi6ut5gGy18sA0qL87v 280/1jKXJOkSrtqMFJFDDAVm5pXd8uUeVNzTaZjm25vlxwOtdaOT0vhqqMyw5getwwtDF5DFtSg3L 9/tIOCEe/1b0hPDisQMCwoDMU2tQxwtMSFX/8+3wXOpB/JIfvvkHmWXfRKWClQ5WzYJZjl8aIRKmd cra/XgDC7DGfR4uXVlw9NRVR3yNxTkE7Oh/4JFlxP5c3fg/nZ23ukBaueVH05fmKKGRy9E8h0D0DD YHqCNQdUZxhSZzURHP/0N0AzYUGShcfhd/BKHkt2lCN1VsWY5hg2Q5YDY/I9H7Lw==; Received: by sipsolutions.net with esmtpsa (TLS1.3:ECDHE_X25519__RSA_PSS_RSAE_SHA256__AES_256_GCM:256) (Exim 4.98.2) (envelope-from ) id 1wSqZr-00000009WRV-1H0w; Fri, 29 May 2026 08:20:15 +0200 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH] wifi: mac80211_hwsim: handle 5/10 MHz chanctx in rc update From: Johannes Berg To: Lachlan Hodges , meihaipeng Cc: Andrei Otcheretianski , linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, syzbot+c0472dd80bb8f668625f@syzkaller.appspotmail.com Date: Fri, 29 May 2026 08:20:13 +0200 In-Reply-To: (sfid-20260529_071103_051144_2118964C) References: <20260529040923.9816-1-meihaipeng@uniontech.com> (sfid-20260529_071103_051144_2118964C) 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 Fri, 2026-05-29 at 15:10 +1000, Lachlan Hodges wrote: > Hi, >=20 > > The STA bandwidth enum has no sub-20 MHz states, so a normal 20 MHz lin= k=20 > > STA falsely trips the warning on 5/10 MHz OCB channel contexts.so=20 > > a normal 20 MHz link STA falsely trips the warning on 5/10 MHz OCB=20 > > channel contexts. >=20 > There is also S1G widths :) but that doesn't really matter. >=20 > > Treat sub-20 MHz channel contexts as 20 MHz for this validation and use= =20 > > the actual channel-context width in the warning message. > >=20 > > Fixes: aea9a6088ae46 ("wifi: mac80211_hwsim: do rc update per link") > > Reported-by: syzbot+c0472dd80bb8f668625f@syzkaller.appspotmail.com > > Closes: https://syzkaller.appspot.com/bug?extid=3Dc0472dd80bb8f668625f > > Signed-off-by: meihaipeng >=20 > Looking at the stack trace of this report and a few of the others, > it comes from mac80211_hwsim_sta_add() which calls the rc_update on > the new STA, so it would probably be better to do something similar > to what we did for S1G [1] since I'm pretty sure the rc_update() > path isn't reachable on 5/10MHz (just like S1G). I don't know if it is or isn't, but a simpler change like that would indeed seem preferable. > Though there are also quite a few 5/10MHz syzbot reports for various > things similar so maybe it's not worth it.. but that is up to > Johannes :). Yeah, I'm still going to rip it out entirely soon. johannes