Maybe it is not a good idea.Okay, I will use this way in patch v2.However, in the same call stack, sta->sdata is also used in theI wonder if it would be better to teach ht_* do do nothing
following functions:
ieee80211_ba_session_work()
___ieee80211_stop_rx_ba_session(sta)
ht_dbg(sta->sdata, ...); -> No check
sdata_info(sta->sdata, ...); -> No check
ieee80211_send_delba(sta->sdata, ...) -> No check
___ieee80211_start_rx_ba_session(sta)
ht_dbg(sta->sdata, ...); -> No check
ht_dbg_ratelimited(sta->sdata, ...); -> No check
ieee80211_tx_ba_session_handle_start(sta)
sdata = sta->sdata; if (!sdata) -> Add check by previous commit
___ieee80211_stop_tx_ba_session(sdata)
ht_dbg(sta->sdata, ...); -> No check
ieee80211_start_tx_ba_cb(sdata)
sdata = sta->sdata; local = sdata->local -> No check
ieee80211_stop_tx_ba_cb(sdata)
ht_dbg(sta->sdata, ...); -> No check
if the first argument is NULL.
But I think it is worth trying, at least locally, to see how it goes.
Thanks, understood.Also, are these theoretical bugs?These bugs are found by my static analysis tool, by extending a known bug
Or something that has been observed?
And has a reproducer?
fixed in a previous commit 69403bad97aa.
Thus, they could be theoretical bugs.
I think it would be worth making that a bit clearer in the
patch description (commit message).