[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <ae0180ae4e73bb32d8f20662b6d9d6a3ead52b95.camel@sipsolutions.net>
Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2022 13:06:28 +0100
From: Johannes Berg <johannes@...solutions.net>
To: William McVicker <willmcvicker@...gle.com>,
linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org
Cc: Marek Szyprowski <m.szyprowski@...sung.com>,
Kalle Valo <kvalo@...eaurora.org>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
Amitkumar Karwar <amitkarwar@...il.com>,
Ganapathi Bhat <ganapathi.bhat@....com>,
Xinming Hu <huxinming820@...il.com>, kernel-team@...roid.com,
Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [BUG] deadlock in nl80211_vendor_cmd
On Fri, 2022-03-25 at 13:04 +0100, Johannes Berg wrote:
>
> So we can avoid the potential deadlock in cfg80211 in a few ways:
>
> 1) export rtnl_lock_unregistering_all() or maybe a variant after
> refactoring the two versions, to allow cfg80211 to use it, that way
> netdev_run_todo() can never have a non-empty todo list
>
> 2) export __rtnl_unlock() so cfg80211 can avoid running
> netdev_run_todo() in the unlock, personally I like this less because
> it might encourage random drivers to use it
>
> 3) completely rework cfg80211's locking, adding a separate mutex for
> the wiphy list so we don't need to acquire the RTNL at all here
> (unless the ops need it, but there's no issue if we don't drop it),
> something like https://p.sipsolutions.net/27d08e1f5881a793.txt
>
Note that none of these actually let you do what you wanted - that is
acquiring the RTNL in the vendor op itself.
johannes
Powered by blists - more mailing lists