Libertas: Association request to the driver failed
Jonathan Cameron
jic23 at cam.ac.uk
Wed Aug 12 04:47:41 EDT 2009
Hi All,
After applying this patch I've been receiving 0x12 response from
an access point (association failed: not all rates supported)
to association requests.
See below for queries on what is happening,
> Several arrays were read before checking whether the index was within
> bounds. ARRAY_SIZE() should be used to determine the size of arrays.
>
> rates->rates has an arraysize of 1, so calling get_common_rates()
> with a rates_size of MAX_RATES (14) was causing reads out of bounds.
>
> tmp_size can increment at most to MAX_RATES * ARRAY_SIZE(lbs_bg_rates),
> so that should be the number of elements of tmp[].
>
> Signed-off-by: Roel Kluin <roel.kluin at gmail.com>
> ---
>
>> | Is it a good idea to use dynamic stack arrays in the kernel?
>> | What about kmalloc for dynamic allocations?
>> |
>> | --
>> | Greetings, Michael.
>>
>> I saw one pattern in trace code (not sure if it's
>> still there) but personally don't like dynamic
>> stack arrays (though at moment the max value
>> being passed into routine is known maybe just
>> use MAX_RATES instead of (*rates_size)?). Hmm?
>
> Good point.
>
>> -- Cyrill
>
> Thanks,
>
> I think there was another problem in lbs_associate(),
> the memcpy already affected rates->rates.
>
> Also in get_common_rates() I think we can safely move the
> memset/memcpy, originally after label done, upwards.
>
> The patch below, if correct, is to be applied after the revert
>
> Roel
>
> diff --git a/drivers/net/wireless/libertas/assoc.c b/drivers/net/wireless/libertas/assoc.c
> index b9b3741..ba0164a 100644
> --- a/drivers/net/wireless/libertas/assoc.c
> +++ b/drivers/net/wireless/libertas/assoc.c
> @@ -1,6 +1,7 @@
> /* Copyright (C) 2006, Red Hat, Inc. */
>
> #include <linux/types.h>
> +#include <linux/kernel.h>
> #include <linux/etherdevice.h>
> #include <linux/ieee80211.h>
> #include <linux/if_arp.h>
> @@ -43,41 +44,41 @@ static int get_common_rates(struct lbs_private *priv,
> u16 *rates_size)
> {
> u8 *card_rates = lbs_bg_rates;
> - size_t num_card_rates = sizeof(lbs_bg_rates);
> - int ret = 0, i, j;
> - u8 tmp[30];
> + int i, j;
> + u8 tmp[MAX_RATES * ARRAY_SIZE(lbs_bg_rates)];
> size_t tmp_size = 0;
>
> /* For each rate in card_rates that exists in rate1, copy to tmp */
> - for (i = 0; card_rates[i] && (i < num_card_rates); i++) {
> - for (j = 0; rates[j] && (j < *rates_size); j++) {
> + for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(lbs_bg_rates) && card_rates[i]; i++) {
> + for (j = 0; j < *rates_size && rates[j]; j++) {
> if (rates[j] == card_rates[i])
> tmp[tmp_size++] = card_rates[i];
> }
> }
>
> lbs_deb_hex(LBS_DEB_JOIN, "AP rates ", rates, *rates_size);
> - lbs_deb_hex(LBS_DEB_JOIN, "card rates ", card_rates, num_card_rates);
> + lbs_deb_hex(LBS_DEB_JOIN, "card rates ", card_rates,
> + ARRAY_SIZE(lbs_bg_rates));
> lbs_deb_hex(LBS_DEB_JOIN, "common rates", tmp, tmp_size);
> lbs_deb_join("TX data rate 0x%02x\n", priv->cur_rate);
>
> + memset(rates, 0, *rates_size);
> + *rates_size = min_t(u16, tmp_size, *rates_size);
> + memcpy(rates, tmp, *rates_size);
> +
> if (!priv->enablehwauto) {
> for (i = 0; i < tmp_size; i++) {
> if (tmp[i] == priv->cur_rate)
> - goto done;
> + break;
> + }
> + if (i == tmp_size) {
> + lbs_pr_alert("Previously set fixed data rate %#x isn't "
> + "compatible with the network.\n",
> + priv->cur_rate);
> + return -1;
> }
> - lbs_pr_alert("Previously set fixed data rate %#x isn't "
> - "compatible with the network.\n", priv->cur_rate);
> - ret = -1;
> - goto done;
> }
> - ret = 0;
> -
> -done:
> - memset(rates, 0, *rates_size);
> - *rates_size = min_t(int, tmp_size, *rates_size);
> - memcpy(rates, tmp, *rates_size);
> - return ret;
> + return 0;
> }
>
>
> @@ -321,8 +322,8 @@ static int lbs_associate(struct lbs_private *priv,
>
> rates = (struct mrvl_ie_rates_param_set *) pos;
> rates->header.type = cpu_to_le16(TLV_TYPE_RATES);
> - memcpy(&rates->rates, &bss->rates, MAX_RATES);
> - tmplen = MAX_RATES;
> + tmplen = min_t(u16, ARRAY_SIZE(rates->rates), MAX_RATES);
Isn't this always going to be 1? Switching back to original version
allows association to work for me.
As is, it only allows one rate to be tested as ARRAY_SIZE(rates->rates)
is always 1 as it stands.
If this is the desired behaviour please explain why?
I'll admit I'm not really sure what should be happening, I've merely
been bisecting looking for what was causing a regression for me.
> + memcpy(&rates->rates, &bss->rates, tmplen);
> if (get_common_rates(priv, rates->rates, &tmplen)) {
> ret = -1;
> goto done;
> @@ -598,7 +599,7 @@ static int lbs_adhoc_join(struct lbs_private *priv,
>
> /* Copy Data rates from the rates recorded in scan response */
> memset(cmd.bss.rates, 0, sizeof(cmd.bss.rates));
> - ratesize = min_t(u16, sizeof(cmd.bss.rates), MAX_RATES);
> + ratesize = min_t(u16, ARRAY_SIZE(cmd.bss.rates), MAX_RATES);
> memcpy(cmd.bss.rates, bss->rates, ratesize);
> if (get_common_rates(priv, cmd.bss.rates, &ratesize)) {
> lbs_deb_join("ADHOC_JOIN: get_common_rates returned error.\n");
>
> _______________________________________________
> libertas-dev mailing list
> libertas-dev at lists.infradead.org
> http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/libertas-dev
>
More information about the libertas-dev
mailing list