[RFC - is this a bug?] wifi: ath10k: Asking for some light on this, please :)

From: Gustavo A. R. Silva
Date: Tue Oct 24 2023 - 15:50:41 EST


Hi all,

While working on tranforming one-element array `peer_chan_list` in
`struct wmi_tdls_peer_capabilities` into a flex-array member

7187 struct wmi_tdls_peer_capabilities {
...
7199 struct wmi_channel peer_chan_list[1];
7200 } __packed;

the following line caught my attention:

./drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath10k/wmi.c:
8920 memset(skb->data, 0, sizeof(*cmd));

Notice that before the flex-array transformation, we are zeroing 128
bytes in `skb->data` because `sizeof(*cmd) == 128`, see below:

$ pahole -C wmi_10_4_tdls_peer_update_cmd drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath10k/wmi.o
struct wmi_10_4_tdls_peer_update_cmd {
__le32 vdev_id; /* 0 4 */
struct wmi_mac_addr peer_macaddr; /* 4 8 */
__le32 peer_state; /* 12 4 */
__le32 reserved[4]; /* 16 16 */
struct wmi_tdls_peer_capabilities peer_capab; /* 32 96 */

/* size: 128, cachelines: 2, members: 5 */
};

So, after the flex-array transformation (and the necessary adjustments
to a few other lines of code) we would be zeroing 104 bytes in
`skb->data` because `sizeof(*cmd) == 104`, see below:

$ pahole -C wmi_10_4_tdls_peer_update_cmd drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath10k/wmi.o
struct wmi_10_4_tdls_peer_update_cmd {
__le32 vdev_id; /* 0 4 */
struct wmi_mac_addr peer_macaddr; /* 4 8 */
__le32 peer_state; /* 12 4 */
__le32 reserved[4]; /* 16 16 */
struct wmi_tdls_peer_capabilities peer_capab; /* 32 72 */

/* size: 104, cachelines: 2, members: 5 */
/* last cacheline: 40 bytes */
};

This difference arises because the size of the element type for the
`peer_chan_list` array, which is `sizeof(struct wmi_channel) == 24 `

$ pahole -C wmi_channel drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath10k/wmi.o
struct wmi_channel {
__le32 mhz; /* 0 4 */
__le32 band_center_freq1; /* 4 4 */
__le32 band_center_freq2; /* 8 4 */

[..]
/* 20 4 */

/* size: 24, cachelines: 1, members: 6 */
/* last cacheline: 24 bytes */
};

is included in `sizeof(*cmd)` before the transformation.

So, my question is: do we really need to zero out those extra 24 bytes in
`skb->data`? or is it rather a bug in the original code?

Thanks!
--
Gustavo