[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20181004075914.GB20523@redhat.com>
Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2018 09:59:15 +0200
From: Stanislaw Gruszka <sgruszka@...hat.com>
To: Jia-Ju Bai <baijiaju1990@...il.com>
Cc: kvalo@...eaurora.org, davem@...emloft.net,
linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] net: wireless: iwlegacy: Fix possible data races in
il4965_send_rxon_assoc()
On Wed, Oct 03, 2018 at 10:07:45PM +0800, Jia-Ju Bai wrote:
> These possible races are detected by a runtime testing.
> To fix these races, the mutex lock is used in il4965_send_rxon_assoc()
> to protect the data.
Really ? I'm surprised by that, see below.
> @@ -1297,6 +1297,7 @@ il4965_send_rxon_assoc(struct il_priv *il)
> const struct il_rxon_cmd *rxon1 = &il->staging;
> const struct il_rxon_cmd *rxon2 = &il->active;
>
> + mutex_lock(&il->mutex);
> if (rxon1->flags == rxon2->flags &&
For 4965 driver il4965_send_rxon_assoc() is only called by
il_mac_bss_info_changed() and il4965_commit_rxon().
il_mac_bss_info_changed() acquire il->mutex and
callers of il4965_commit_rxon() acquire il->mutex
(but I did not check all of them).
So I wonder how this patch did not cause the deadlock ?
Anyway what can be done is adding:
lockdep_assert_held(&il->mutex);
il4965_commit_rxon() to check if we hold the mutex.
Thanks
Stanislaw
Powered by blists - more mailing lists