[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <f2a393a2f01c93776446c83e345a102a780cfe88.camel@sipsolutions.net>
Date: Mon, 06 Apr 2020 14:44:02 +0200
From: Johannes Berg <johannes@...solutions.net>
To: Sumit Garg <sumit.garg@...aro.org>, linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org
Cc: davem@...emloft.net, kuba@...nel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, matthias.schoepfer@...inx.io,
Philipp.Berg@...bherr.com, Michael.Weitner@...bherr.com,
daniel.thompson@...aro.org, loic.poulain@...aro.org,
stable@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mac80211: fix race in ieee80211_register_hw()
On Mon, 2020-04-06 at 17:51 +0530, Sumit Garg wrote:
> A race condition leading to a kernel crash is observed during invocation
> of ieee80211_register_hw() on a dragonboard410c device having wcn36xx
> driver built as a loadable module along with a wifi manager in user-space
> waiting for a wifi device (wlanX) to be active.
>
> Sequence diagram for a particular kernel crash scenario:
>
> user-space ieee80211_register_hw() RX IRQ
> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> | | |
> |<---wlan0---wiphy_register() |
> |----start wlan0---->| |
> | |<---IRQ---(RX packet)
> | Kernel crash |
> | due to unallocated |
> | workqueue. |
> | | |
> | alloc_ordered_workqueue() |
> | | |
> | Misc wiphy init. |
> | | |
> | ieee80211_if_add() |
> | | |
>
> As evident from above sequence diagram, this race condition isn't specific
> to a particular wifi driver but rather the initialization sequence in
> ieee80211_register_hw() needs to be fixed.
Indeed, oops.
> So re-order the initialization
> sequence and the updated sequence diagram would look like:
>
> user-space ieee80211_register_hw() RX IRQ
> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> | | |
> | alloc_ordered_workqueue() |
> | | |
> | Misc wiphy init. |
> | | |
> |<---wlan0---wiphy_register() |
> |----start wlan0---->| |
> | |<---IRQ---(RX packet)
> | | |
> | ieee80211_if_add() |
> | | |
Makes sense.
> @@ -1254,6 +1250,14 @@ int ieee80211_register_hw(struct ieee80211_hw *hw)
> local->sband_allocated |= BIT(band);
> }
>
> + rtnl_unlock();
> +
> + result = wiphy_register(local->hw.wiphy);
> + if (result < 0)
> + goto fail_wiphy_register;
> +
> + rtnl_lock();
I'm a bit worried about this unlock/relock here though.
I think we only need the RTNL for the call to
ieee80211_init_rate_ctrl_alg() and then later ieee80211_if_add(), so
perhaps we can move that a little closer?
All the stuff between is really just setting up local stuff, so doesn't
really need to worry?
johannes
Powered by blists - more mailing lists