On Mon, Jan 15, 2018 at 1:01 PM, Johannes Berg
wrote:
> On Mon, 2018-01-15 at 10:12 +0100, Dmitry Vyukov wrote:
>
>> However, there can be some surprising things, for example, executing
>> one ioctl/setsockopt with data meant for another one, or these
>> 0x are actually mean 0 (for
On Mon, 2018-01-15 at 10:12 +0100, Dmitry Vyukov wrote:
> However, there can be some surprising things, for example, executing
> one ioctl/setsockopt with data meant for another one, or these
> 0x are actually mean 0 (for involved reasons),
I think those fff was actually what was
On Mon, Jan 15, 2018 at 9:57 AM, Johannes Berg
wrote:
> Hi,
>
>> RIP: 0010:rfkill_alloc+0x2c0/0x380 net/rfkill/core.c:930
>
> This seems pretty obvious - there's no name given.
>
>> wiphy_new_nm+0x159c/0x21d0 net/wireless/core.c:487
>> ieee80211_alloc_hw_nm+0x4b4/0x2140 net/mac80211/main.c:531
Hi,
> RIP: 0010:rfkill_alloc+0x2c0/0x380 net/rfkill/core.c:930
This seems pretty obvious - there's no name given.
> wiphy_new_nm+0x159c/0x21d0 net/wireless/core.c:487
> ieee80211_alloc_hw_nm+0x4b4/0x2140 net/mac80211/main.c:531
which is strange, because we try to validate the name here.
Ca
