From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 092673FC0 for ; Fri, 17 Sep 2021 14:25:15 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 080CC61130; Fri, 17 Sep 2021 14:25:14 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=linuxfoundation.org; s=korg; t=1631888715; bh=E3mDeuPqZnj6PmvtQ1rG0uL0Gs/zr9Vd7ruFoBx6kjw=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=CL3wJLEORe0FSJds0lt6cQbmZbbV2FUxBVcFvbKEd/M0xwnqiK14HilCsgQ5fquCY o0XpxOg0PaPl3TiEM/VkHyEff89fN1j3aFTwkm/HZGvl9oM/pVN+/oiGdMLzDsge8h cIem6CuJFxaaxECQ048pYUmsrxPiluEerWksUfUk= Date: Fri, 17 Sep 2021 16:25:12 +0200 From: Greg KH To: Hans de Goede Cc: Fabio Aiuto , Larry.Finger@lwfinger.net, linux-staging@lists.linux.dev, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] staging: rtl8723bs: protect sleepq_len access by sleep_q.lock Message-ID: References: <20210913130346.2390-1-fabioaiuto83@gmail.com> <20210913133915.GA1414@agape.jhs> <30e138d5-fc51-bbcd-4dfc-3264c258c0bc@redhat.com> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-staging@lists.linux.dev List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <30e138d5-fc51-bbcd-4dfc-3264c258c0bc@redhat.com> On Mon, Sep 13, 2021 at 05:12:19PM +0200, Hans de Goede wrote: > Hi Fabio, > > On 9/13/21 3:39 PM, Fabio Aiuto wrote: > > Hello Hans, > > > > On Mon, Sep 13, 2021 at 03:24:44PM +0200, Hans de Goede wrote: > >> Hi Fabio, > >> > > > >>> Note that sleep_q.lock is already taken inside > >>> rtw_free_xmitframe_queue so we just wrap sleepq_len > >>> access. > >>> > >>> Moved pxmitpriv->lock after sleep_q.lock release to > >>> avoid locks nesting. > > > >>> rtw_free_xmitframe_queue(pxmitpriv, &psta->sleep_q); > >>> + spin_lock_bh(&psta->sleep_q.lock); > >> > >> AFAICT this needs to be above the rtw_free_xmitframe_queue() ? > > > > as I wrote on the changelog, the sleep_q.lock is already > > taken inside rtw_free_xmitframe_queue. If I put the > > sleep_q.lock above that function a soft lock occurs when > > I disconnect. > > > > So I put it just below rtw_free_xmitframe_queue. > > > > Things works fine this way. > > > > Please tell me if there's a best way to do it. > > Hmm I see, this may work, but the sleepq_len access > really should be protected by the same lock as the freeing > of the queue is without dropping it in between. > > That rtw_free_xmitframe_queue() takes the sleep_q.lock > then to me that signals that other (higher-level) functions should > not take sleep_q.lock at all, since this is then private to the > functions operating on the sleep_q. > > I've an idea how we we can possibly tackle this, but I'm not sure > yet I will try to make some time to look into this tomorrow or > the day after. I'm just going to go and revert the original change here until you all can sort it out :) thanks, greg k-h