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  PHC 
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
 
Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:   Fri, 24 Apr 2020 11:18:59 +0200
From:   Johannes Berg <johannes@...solutions.net>
To:     madhuparnabhowmik10@...il.com, davem@...emloft.net, kuba@...nel.org
Cc:     linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, frextrite@...il.com,
        joel@...lfernandes.org, paulmck@...nel.org,
        linux-kernel-mentees@...ts.linuxfoundation.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] net: mac80211: util.c: Fix RCU list usage warnings

Hi,

> This patch fixes the following warning (CONIG_PROVE_RCU_LIST)
> in ieee80211_check_combinations().

Thanks, and sorry for the delay.


> +++ b/net/mac80211/util.c
> @@ -254,7 +254,7 @@ static void __ieee80211_wake_txqs(struct ieee80211_sub_if_data *sdata, int ac)
>  
>  	sdata->vif.txqs_stopped[ac] = false;
>  
> -	list_for_each_entry_rcu(sta, &local->sta_list, list) {
> +	list_for_each_entry(sta, &local->sta_list, list) {
>  		if (sdata != sta->sdata)
>  			continue;

In this case, for example, I don't even understand why the warning would
happen, because certainly the only caller of this (_ieee80211_wake_txqs)
does rcu_read_lock()?

I'm also not convinced that the necessary lock is actually held here,
this comes from a tasklet that doesn't hold any locks?
 
I'd appreciate if you could add comments/explain why you think the
changes were right, or ideally even add "lockdep_assert_held()"
annotations. That would make it much easier to check this patch.

> @@ -3931,7 +3932,7 @@ int ieee80211_check_combinations(struct ieee80211_sub_if_data *sdata,
>  		params.num_different_channels++;
>  	}
>  
> -	list_for_each_entry_rcu(sdata_iter, &local->interfaces, list) {
> +	list_for_each_entry(sdata_iter, &local->interfaces, list) {
>  		struct wireless_dev *wdev_iter;
>  
>  		wdev_iter = &sdata_iter->wdev;
> @@ -3982,7 +3983,7 @@ int ieee80211_max_num_channels(struct ieee80211_local *local)
>  			ieee80211_chanctx_radar_detect(local, ctx);
>  	}
>  
> -	list_for_each_entry_rcu(sdata, &local->interfaces, list)
> +	list_for_each_entry(sdata, &local->interfaces, list)
>  		params.iftype_num[sdata->wdev.iftype]++;

These changes correct, as far as I can tell, in that they rely on the
RTNL now - but can you perhaps document that as well?

There doesn't seem to be any multi-lock version of lockdep_assert_held()
or is there? That'd be _really_ useful here, because I want to get rid
of some RTNL reliance in the longer term, and having annotation here
saying "either RTNL or iflist_mtx is fine" would be good.

johannes

Powered by blists - more mailing lists