[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <YaV0pllJ5p/EuUat@google.com>
Date: Mon, 29 Nov 2021 16:47:34 -0800
From: Brian Norris <briannorris@...omium.org>
To: Jia-Ju Bai <baijiaju1990@...il.com>
Cc: amitkarwar@...il.com, ganapathi017@...il.com,
sharvari.harisangam@....com, huxinming820@...il.com,
kvalo@...eaurora.org, David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
kuba@...nel.org, linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org,
netdev@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Doug Anderson <dianders@...omium.org>
Subject: [PATCH] mwifiex: Fix possible ABBA deadlock
Quoting Jia-Ju Bai <baijiaju1990@...il.com>:
mwifiex_dequeue_tx_packet()
spin_lock_bh(&priv->wmm.ra_list_spinlock); --> Line 1432 (Lock A)
mwifiex_send_addba()
spin_lock_bh(&priv->sta_list_spinlock); --> Line 608 (Lock B)
mwifiex_process_sta_tx_pause()
spin_lock_bh(&priv->sta_list_spinlock); --> Line 398 (Lock B)
mwifiex_update_ralist_tx_pause()
spin_lock_bh(&priv->wmm.ra_list_spinlock); --> Line 941 (Lock A)
Similar report for mwifiex_process_uap_tx_pause().
While the locking expectations in this driver are a bit unclear, the
Fixed commit only intended to protect the sta_ptr, so we can drop the
lock as soon as we're done with it.
IIUC, this deadlock cannot actually happen, because command event
processing (which calls mwifiex_process_sta_tx_pause()) is
sequentialized with TX packet processing (e.g.,
mwifiex_dequeue_tx_packet()) via the main loop (mwifiex_main_process()).
But it's good not to leave this potential issue lurking.
Fixes: ("f0f7c2275fb9 mwifiex: minor cleanups w/ sta_list_spinlock in cfg80211.c")
Cc: Douglas Anderson <dianders@...omium.org>
Reported-by: TOTE Robot <oslab@...nghua.edu.cn>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-wireless/0e495b14-efbb-e0da-37bd-af6bd677ee2c@gmail.com/
Signed-off-by: Brian Norris <briannorris@...omium.org>
---
On Tue, Nov 23, 2021 at 11:31:34AM +0800, Jia-Ju Bai wrote:
> I am not quite sure whether these possible deadlocks are real and how to fix
> them if they are real.
> Any feedback would be appreciated, thanks :)
I think these are at least theoretically real, and so we should take
something like the $subject patch probably. But I don't believe we can
actually hit this due to the main-loop structure of this driver.
Anyway, see the surrounding patch.
Thanks,
Brian
drivers/net/wireless/marvell/mwifiex/sta_event.c | 8 ++++++--
1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/net/wireless/marvell/mwifiex/sta_event.c b/drivers/net/wireless/marvell/mwifiex/sta_event.c
index 80e5d44bad9d..7d42c5d2dbf6 100644
--- a/drivers/net/wireless/marvell/mwifiex/sta_event.c
+++ b/drivers/net/wireless/marvell/mwifiex/sta_event.c
@@ -365,10 +365,12 @@ static void mwifiex_process_uap_tx_pause(struct mwifiex_private *priv,
sta_ptr = mwifiex_get_sta_entry(priv, tp->peermac);
if (sta_ptr && sta_ptr->tx_pause != tp->tx_pause) {
sta_ptr->tx_pause = tp->tx_pause;
+ spin_unlock_bh(&priv->sta_list_spinlock);
mwifiex_update_ralist_tx_pause(priv, tp->peermac,
tp->tx_pause);
+ } else {
+ spin_unlock_bh(&priv->sta_list_spinlock);
}
- spin_unlock_bh(&priv->sta_list_spinlock);
}
}
@@ -400,11 +402,13 @@ static void mwifiex_process_sta_tx_pause(struct mwifiex_private *priv,
sta_ptr = mwifiex_get_sta_entry(priv, tp->peermac);
if (sta_ptr && sta_ptr->tx_pause != tp->tx_pause) {
sta_ptr->tx_pause = tp->tx_pause;
+ spin_unlock_bh(&priv->sta_list_spinlock);
mwifiex_update_ralist_tx_pause(priv,
tp->peermac,
tp->tx_pause);
+ } else {
+ spin_unlock_bh(&priv->sta_list_spinlock);
}
- spin_unlock_bh(&priv->sta_list_spinlock);
}
}
}
--
2.34.0.rc2.393.gf8c9666880-goog
Powered by blists - more mailing lists