linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 00/10] RTW88: Add support for USB variants

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:   Mon, 30 May 2022 11:52:32 +0200
From:   Sascha Hauer <s.hauer@...gutronix.de>
To:     Kalle Valo <kvalo@...nel.org>
Cc:     linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org, Neo Jou <neojou@...il.com>,
        Hans Ulli Kroll <linux@...i-kroll.de>,
        Ping-Ke Shih <pkshih@...ltek.com>,
        Yan-Hsuan Chuang <tony0620emma@...il.com>,
        netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Martin Blumenstingl <martin.blumenstingl@...glemail.com>,
        kernel@...gutronix.de, Johannes Berg <johannes@...solutions.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/10] RTW88: Add support for USB variants

On Mon, May 30, 2022 at 12:25:13PM +0300, Kalle Valo wrote:
> Sascha Hauer <s.hauer@...gutronix.de> writes:
> 
> > Another problem to address is that the driver uses
> > ieee80211_iterate_stations_atomic() and
> > ieee80211_iterate_active_interfaces_atomic() and does register accesses
> > in the iterator. This doesn't work with USB, so iteration is done in two
> > steps now: The ieee80211_iterate_*_atomic() functions are only used to
> > collect the stations/interfaces on a list which is then iterated over
> > non-atomically in the second step. The implementation for this is
> > basically the one suggested by Ping-Ke here:
> >
> > https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/423f474e15c948eda4db5bc9a50fd391@realtek.com/
> 
> Isn't this racy? What guarantees that vifs are not deleted after
> ieee80211_iterate_active_interfaces_atomic() call?

The driver mutex &rtwdev->mutex is acquired during the whole
collection/iteration process. For deleting an interface
ieee80211_ops::remove_interface would have to be called, right?
That would acquire &rtwdev->mutex as well, so I think this should be
safe.

Sascha

-- 
Pengutronix e.K.                           |                             |
Steuerwalder Str. 21                       | http://www.pengutronix.de/  |
31137 Hildesheim, Germany                  | Phone: +49-5121-206917-0    |
Amtsgericht Hildesheim, HRA 2686           | Fax:   +49-5121-206917-5555 |