linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2] staging: rtl8723bs: remove possible deadlock when disconnect

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <bc640665-2768-6add-d523-6ee80849eb98@redhat.com>
Date:   Sat, 11 Sep 2021 13:33:59 +0200
From:   Hans de Goede <hdegoede@...hat.com>
To:     Fabio Aiuto <fabioaiuto83@...il.com>
Cc:     gregkh@...uxfoundation.org, Larry.Finger@...inger.net,
        linux-staging@...ts.linux.dev, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Martin Kaiser <martin@...ser.cx>,
        Phillip Potter <phil@...lpotter.co.uk>,
        Michael Straube <straube.linux@...il.com>,
        "Fabio M. De Francesco" <fmdefrancesco@...il.com>,
        Pavel Skripkin <paskripkin@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] staging: rtl8723bs: remove possible deadlock when
 disconnect

Hi All,

On 9/11/21 12:53 PM, Fabio Aiuto wrote:
> Hello Hans,
> 
> On Fri, Sep 10, 2021 at 11:06:58PM +0200, Hans de Goede wrote:
>> Hi,
> 
> <snip>
> 
>>
>> Thank you for your work on this. Overall this looks good.
>>
>> I have one remark, since now you are relying on the
>> sta->sleep_q.lock to protect the sleep_q data, you also
>> need to update the sleep_q accesses in rtw_free_stainfo()
>> specifically you need to add a spin_{lock,unlock}_bh(psta->sleep_q.lock)
>> around these lines:
>>
>>
>>         rtw_free_xmitframe_queue(pxmitpriv, &psta->sleep_q);
>>         psta->sleepq_len = 0;
>>
>>
>> Note there also is a:
>>
>>         spin_lock_bh(&pxmitpriv->lock);
>>
>> Just above this which needs to be pushed down to below the
>> block which takes the psta->sleep_q.lock, so that the entire
>> thing ends up looking like this:
>>
>> 	spin_lock_bh(&psta->sleep_q.lock);
>>         rtw_free_xmitframe_queue(pxmitpriv, &psta->sleep_q);
>>         psta->sleepq_len = 0;
>> 	spin_unlock_bh(&psta->sleep_q.lock);
>>
>>         spin_lock_bh(&pxmitpriv->lock);
>>
>> Other then that this patch looks good, thanks.
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Hans
>>
> 
> good catch, thanks a lot for review.
> 
> Greg, I see that this one is not in staging-next,
> would you drop it so I can send a new one?
> Or shall I send a Fixes: patch?

Ah I missed that this was already merged. Since this is already merged
the issue which I noticed should be fixed with a separate follow-up
patch (with a Fixes: tag, thanks.

Regards,

Hans