Re: [PATCH] Revert "ath9k: Fix general protection fault in ath9k_hif_usb_rx_cb"

2020-07-13 Thread Kalle Valo
Viktor Jägersküpper writes: > Kalle Valo wrote: >> Viktor Jägersküpper writes: >> >>> Kalle Valo writes: Roman Mamedov writes: > On Sat, 4 Apr 2020 12:18:38 +0800 > Qiujun Huang wrote: > >> In ath9k_hif_usb_rx_cb interface number is assumed to be 0. >> usb_ifnum

Re: [PATCH] Revert "ath9k: Fix general protection fault in ath9k_hif_usb_rx_cb"

2020-07-09 Thread Viktor Jägersküpper
Kalle Valo wrote: > Viktor Jägersküpper writes: > >> Kalle Valo writes: >>> Roman Mamedov writes: >>> On Sat, 4 Apr 2020 12:18:38 +0800 Qiujun Huang wrote: > In ath9k_hif_usb_rx_cb interface number is assumed to be 0. > usb_ifnum_to_if(urb->dev, 0) > But it isn't alw

Re: [PATCH] Revert "ath9k: Fix general protection fault in ath9k_hif_usb_rx_cb"

2020-07-01 Thread Kalle Valo
Viktor Jägersküpper writes: > Kalle Valo writes: >> Roman Mamedov writes: >> >>> On Sat, 4 Apr 2020 12:18:38 +0800 >>> Qiujun Huang wrote: >>> In ath9k_hif_usb_rx_cb interface number is assumed to be 0. usb_ifnum_to_if(urb->dev, 0) But it isn't always true. The case r

Re: [PATCH] Revert "ath9k: Fix general protection fault in ath9k_hif_usb_rx_cb"

2020-07-01 Thread Roman Mamedov
On Wed, 1 Jul 2020 17:53:27 +0200 Viktor Jägersküpper wrote: > Kalle Valo writes: > > Roman Mamedov writes: > > > >> On Sat, 4 Apr 2020 12:18:38 +0800 > >> Qiujun Huang wrote: > >> > >>> In ath9k_hif_usb_rx_cb interface number is assumed to be 0. > >>> usb_ifnum_to_if(urb->dev, 0) > >>> But i

[PATCH] Revert "ath9k: Fix general protection fault in ath9k_hif_usb_rx_cb"

2020-07-01 Thread Viktor Jägersküpper
Kalle Valo writes: > Roman Mamedov writes: > >> On Sat, 4 Apr 2020 12:18:38 +0800 >> Qiujun Huang wrote: >> >>> In ath9k_hif_usb_rx_cb interface number is assumed to be 0. >>> usb_ifnum_to_if(urb->dev, 0) >>> But it isn't always true. >>> >>> The case reported by syzbot: >>> https://lore.kernel