linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 3/9] rtw88: Move rtw_update_sta_info() out of rtw_ra_mask_info_update

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]

Date:   Fri, 7 Jan 2022 22:44:13 +0100
From:   Martin Blumenstingl <martin.blumenstingl@...glemail.com>
To:     Pkshih <pkshih@...ltek.com>
Cc:     "linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org" <linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org>,
        "tony0620emma@...il.com" <tony0620emma@...il.com>,
        "kvalo@...eaurora.org" <kvalo@...eaurora.org>,
        "johannes@...solutions.net" <johannes@...solutions.net>,
        "netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Neo Jou <neojou@...il.com>,
        Jernej Skrabec <jernej.skrabec@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/9] rtw88: Move rtw_update_sta_info() out of rtw_ra_mask_info_update_iter()

Hi Ping-Ke,

On Fri, Jan 7, 2022 at 9:42 AM Pkshih <pkshih@...ltek.com> wrote:
[...]
>
> > @@ -699,11 +702,20 @@ static void rtw_ra_mask_info_update(struct rtw_dev *rtwdev,
> >                                   const struct cfg80211_bitrate_mask *mask)
> >  {
> >       struct rtw_iter_bitrate_mask_data br_data;
> > +     unsigned int i;
> > +
> > +     mutex_lock(&rtwdev->mutex);
>
> I think this lock is used to protect br_data.si[i], right?
Correct, I chose this lock because it's also used in
rtw_ops_sta_remove() and rtw_ops_sta_add() (which could modify the
data in br_data.si[i]).

> And, I prefer to move mutex lock to caller, like:
>
> @@ -734,7 +734,9 @@ static int rtw_ops_set_bitrate_mask(struct ieee80211_hw *hw,
>  {
>         struct rtw_dev *rtwdev = hw->priv;
>
> +       mutex_lock(&rtwdev->mutex);
>         rtw_ra_mask_info_update(rtwdev, vif, mask);
> +       mutex_unlock(&rtwdev->mutex);
>
>         return 0;
>  }
Thank you for this hint - if I do it like you suggest then the locking
will be consistent with other functions.
I'll send a v3 with this fixed.


Best regards,
Martin