netdev - 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 13:07:25 +0300
From:   Kalle Valo <kvalo@...nel.org>
To:     Sascha Hauer <s.hauer@...gutronix.de>
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

Sascha Hauer <s.hauer@...gutronix.de> writes:

> 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.

Can you add a comment to the code explaining this? And
lockdep_assert_held() is a good way to guarantee that the mutex is
really held.

-- 
https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/linux-wireless/list/

https://wireless.wiki.kernel.org/en/developers/documentation/submittingpatches