[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.LFD.0.999.0709061818270.3781@enigma.security.iitk.ac.in>
Date: Thu, 6 Sep 2007 18:22:24 +0530 (IST)
From: Satyam Sharma <satyam@...radead.org>
To: Johannes Berg <johannes@...solutions.net>
cc: Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>,
Florian Lohoff <flo@...822.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org,
Michal Piotrowski <michal.k.k.piotrowski@...il.com>,
ipw3945-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net, yi.zhu@...el.com,
Michael Wu <flamingice@...rmilk.net>
Subject: Re: BUG: scheduling while atomic: ifconfig/0x00000002/4170
On Thu, 6 Sep 2007, Johannes Berg wrote:
> On Thu, 2007-09-06 at 16:23 +0800, Herbert Xu wrote:
> > On Thu, Sep 06, 2007 at 10:32:33AM +0530, Satyam Sharma wrote:
> > >
> > > > > [ 382.529041] [<c02c8abc>] dev_close+0x24/0x67
> > > > > [ 382.529052] [<e01f402b>] ieee80211_master_stop+0x4a/0x6d [mac80211]
> >
> > This is where the bug is. You cannot call dev_close from an
> > atomic context as i33380211_master_stop does it within spin
> > locks.
>
> Hah, I suspected as much but didn't have a chance to look yet. I had
> plans to replace that sub_if_list with an RCU list and not require the
> lock there, but that's far off.
Unless I missed something obvious (let me know if that's the case! :-)
an RCU-protected list would suffer the same fate. list_for_each_xxx_rcu()
must be under rcu_read_lock() which == preempt_disable() ...
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists