* [PATCH] wifi: rtl8xxxu: don't call dev_kfree_skb() under spin_lock_irqsave()
@ 2022-12-07 14:37 Yang Yingliang
2022-12-08 0:38 ` Ping-Ke Shih
0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Yang Yingliang @ 2022-12-07 14:37 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jes.Sorensen, kvalo; +Cc: linux-wireless
It is not allowed to call consume_skb() from hardware interrupt context
or with interrupts being disabled. So replace dev_kfree_skb() with
dev_consume_skb_irq() under spin_lock_irqsave(). Compile tested only.
Fixes: 26f1fad29ad9 ("New driver: rtl8xxxu (mac80211)")
Signed-off-by: Yang Yingliang <yangyingliang@huawei.com>
---
drivers/net/wireless/realtek/rtl8xxxu/rtl8xxxu_core.c | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/drivers/net/wireless/realtek/rtl8xxxu/rtl8xxxu_core.c b/drivers/net/wireless/realtek/rtl8xxxu/rtl8xxxu_core.c
index ac641a56efb0..d0600af5bef4 100644
--- a/drivers/net/wireless/realtek/rtl8xxxu/rtl8xxxu_core.c
+++ b/drivers/net/wireless/realtek/rtl8xxxu/rtl8xxxu_core.c
@@ -5274,7 +5274,7 @@ static void rtl8xxxu_queue_rx_urb(struct rtl8xxxu_priv *priv,
pending = priv->rx_urb_pending_count;
} else {
skb = (struct sk_buff *)rx_urb->urb.context;
- dev_kfree_skb(skb);
+ dev_consume_skb_irq(skb);
usb_free_urb(&rx_urb->urb);
}
--
2.25.1
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* RE: [PATCH] wifi: rtl8xxxu: don't call dev_kfree_skb() under spin_lock_irqsave()
2022-12-07 14:37 [PATCH] wifi: rtl8xxxu: don't call dev_kfree_skb() under spin_lock_irqsave() Yang Yingliang
@ 2022-12-08 0:38 ` Ping-Ke Shih
2022-12-08 1:25 ` Yang Yingliang
0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Ping-Ke Shih @ 2022-12-08 0:38 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Yang Yingliang, Jes.Sorensen, kvalo; +Cc: linux-wireless
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Yang Yingliang <yangyingliang@huawei.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, December 7, 2022 10:38 PM
> To: Jes.Sorensen@gmail.com; kvalo@kernel.org
> Cc: linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org
> Subject: [PATCH] wifi: rtl8xxxu: don't call dev_kfree_skb() under spin_lock_irqsave()
>
> It is not allowed to call consume_skb() from hardware interrupt context
^^^^^^^^^^^^^ kfree_skb()?
because this patch is to replace dev_kfree_skb().
> or with interrupts being disabled. So replace dev_kfree_skb() with
> dev_consume_skb_irq() under spin_lock_irqsave(). Compile tested only.
>
> Fixes: 26f1fad29ad9 ("New driver: rtl8xxxu (mac80211)")
> Signed-off-by: Yang Yingliang <yangyingliang@huawei.com>
> ---
> drivers/net/wireless/realtek/rtl8xxxu/rtl8xxxu_core.c | 2 +-
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/net/wireless/realtek/rtl8xxxu/rtl8xxxu_core.c
> b/drivers/net/wireless/realtek/rtl8xxxu/rtl8xxxu_core.c
> index ac641a56efb0..d0600af5bef4 100644
> --- a/drivers/net/wireless/realtek/rtl8xxxu/rtl8xxxu_core.c
> +++ b/drivers/net/wireless/realtek/rtl8xxxu/rtl8xxxu_core.c
> @@ -5274,7 +5274,7 @@ static void rtl8xxxu_queue_rx_urb(struct rtl8xxxu_priv *priv,
> pending = priv->rx_urb_pending_count;
> } else {
> skb = (struct sk_buff *)rx_urb->urb.context;
> - dev_kfree_skb(skb);
> + dev_consume_skb_irq(skb);
Why not dev_kfree_skb_irq() instead? any reason?
> usb_free_urb(&rx_urb->urb);
> }
>
> --
> 2.25.1
>
>
> ------Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] wifi: rtl8xxxu: don't call dev_kfree_skb() under spin_lock_irqsave()
2022-12-08 0:38 ` Ping-Ke Shih
@ 2022-12-08 1:25 ` Yang Yingliang
2022-12-08 1:41 ` Ping-Ke Shih
0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Yang Yingliang @ 2022-12-08 1:25 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Ping-Ke Shih, Jes.Sorensen, kvalo; +Cc: linux-wireless, yangyingliang
On 2022/12/8 8:38, Ping-Ke Shih wrote:
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Yang Yingliang <yangyingliang@huawei.com>
>> Sent: Wednesday, December 7, 2022 10:38 PM
>> To: Jes.Sorensen@gmail.com; kvalo@kernel.org
>> Cc: linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org
>> Subject: [PATCH] wifi: rtl8xxxu: don't call dev_kfree_skb() under spin_lock_irqsave()
>>
>> It is not allowed to call consume_skb() from hardware interrupt context
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^ kfree_skb()?
> because this patch is to replace dev_kfree_skb().
>
>> or with interrupts being disabled. So replace dev_kfree_skb() with
>> dev_consume_skb_irq() under spin_lock_irqsave(). Compile tested only.
>>
>> Fixes: 26f1fad29ad9 ("New driver: rtl8xxxu (mac80211)")
>> Signed-off-by: Yang Yingliang <yangyingliang@huawei.com>
>> ---
>> drivers/net/wireless/realtek/rtl8xxxu/rtl8xxxu_core.c | 2 +-
>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/net/wireless/realtek/rtl8xxxu/rtl8xxxu_core.c
>> b/drivers/net/wireless/realtek/rtl8xxxu/rtl8xxxu_core.c
>> index ac641a56efb0..d0600af5bef4 100644
>> --- a/drivers/net/wireless/realtek/rtl8xxxu/rtl8xxxu_core.c
>> +++ b/drivers/net/wireless/realtek/rtl8xxxu/rtl8xxxu_core.c
>> @@ -5274,7 +5274,7 @@ static void rtl8xxxu_queue_rx_urb(struct rtl8xxxu_priv *priv,
>> pending = priv->rx_urb_pending_count;
>> } else {
>> skb = (struct sk_buff *)rx_urb->urb.context;
>> - dev_kfree_skb(skb);
>> + dev_consume_skb_irq(skb);
> Why not dev_kfree_skb_irq() instead? any reason?
#define dev_kfree_skb(a) consume_skb(a)
dev_kfree_skb() is consume_skb(), so use dev_consume_skb_irq() instead.
static inline void dev_kfree_skb_irq(struct sk_buff *skb)
{
__dev_kfree_skb_irq(skb, SKB_REASON_DROPPED);
}
static inline void dev_consume_skb_irq(struct sk_buff *skb)
{
__dev_kfree_skb_irq(skb, SKB_REASON_CONSUMED);
}
They have different free reasons.
Thanks,
Yang
>
>> usb_free_urb(&rx_urb->urb);
>> }
>>
>> --
>> 2.25.1
>>
>>
>> ------Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail.
> .
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* RE: [PATCH] wifi: rtl8xxxu: don't call dev_kfree_skb() under spin_lock_irqsave()
2022-12-08 1:25 ` Yang Yingliang
@ 2022-12-08 1:41 ` Ping-Ke Shih
2022-12-08 1:58 ` Yang Yingliang
2022-12-08 13:19 ` Yang Yingliang
0 siblings, 2 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: Ping-Ke Shih @ 2022-12-08 1:41 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Yang Yingliang, Jes.Sorensen, kvalo; +Cc: linux-wireless
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Yang Yingliang <yangyingliang@huawei.com>
> Sent: Thursday, December 8, 2022 9:26 AM
> To: Ping-Ke Shih <pkshih@realtek.com>; Jes.Sorensen@gmail.com; kvalo@kernel.org
> Cc: linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org; yangyingliang@huawei.com
> Subject: Re: [PATCH] wifi: rtl8xxxu: don't call dev_kfree_skb() under spin_lock_irqsave()
>
>
> On 2022/12/8 8:38, Ping-Ke Shih wrote:
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Yang Yingliang <yangyingliang@huawei.com>
> >> Sent: Wednesday, December 7, 2022 10:38 PM
> >> To: Jes.Sorensen@gmail.com; kvalo@kernel.org
> >> Cc: linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org
> >> Subject: [PATCH] wifi: rtl8xxxu: don't call dev_kfree_skb() under spin_lock_irqsave()
> >>
> >> It is not allowed to call consume_skb() from hardware interrupt context
> > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^ kfree_skb()?
> > because this patch is to replace dev_kfree_skb().
> >
> >> or with interrupts being disabled. So replace dev_kfree_skb() with
> >> dev_consume_skb_irq() under spin_lock_irqsave(). Compile tested only.
> >>
> >> Fixes: 26f1fad29ad9 ("New driver: rtl8xxxu (mac80211)")
> >> Signed-off-by: Yang Yingliang <yangyingliang@huawei.com>
> >> ---
> >> drivers/net/wireless/realtek/rtl8xxxu/rtl8xxxu_core.c | 2 +-
> >> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/drivers/net/wireless/realtek/rtl8xxxu/rtl8xxxu_core.c
> >> b/drivers/net/wireless/realtek/rtl8xxxu/rtl8xxxu_core.c
> >> index ac641a56efb0..d0600af5bef4 100644
> >> --- a/drivers/net/wireless/realtek/rtl8xxxu/rtl8xxxu_core.c
> >> +++ b/drivers/net/wireless/realtek/rtl8xxxu/rtl8xxxu_core.c
> >> @@ -5274,7 +5274,7 @@ static void rtl8xxxu_queue_rx_urb(struct rtl8xxxu_priv *priv,
> >> pending = priv->rx_urb_pending_count;
> >> } else {
> >> skb = (struct sk_buff *)rx_urb->urb.context;
> >> - dev_kfree_skb(skb);
> >> + dev_consume_skb_irq(skb);
> > Why not dev_kfree_skb_irq() instead? any reason?
> #define dev_kfree_skb(a) consume_skb(a)
> dev_kfree_skb() is consume_skb(), so use dev_consume_skb_irq() instead.
>
> static inline void dev_kfree_skb_irq(struct sk_buff *skb)
> {
> __dev_kfree_skb_irq(skb, SKB_REASON_DROPPED);
> }
>
> static inline void dev_consume_skb_irq(struct sk_buff *skb)
> {
> __dev_kfree_skb_irq(skb, SKB_REASON_CONSUMED);
> }
> They have different free reasons.
>
It falls into this case because of 'priv->shutdown', so DROPPED reason makes
sense, no? Or I misunderstand the reason?
--
Ping-Ke
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] wifi: rtl8xxxu: don't call dev_kfree_skb() under spin_lock_irqsave()
2022-12-08 1:41 ` Ping-Ke Shih
@ 2022-12-08 1:58 ` Yang Yingliang
2022-12-08 13:19 ` Yang Yingliang
1 sibling, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: Yang Yingliang @ 2022-12-08 1:58 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Ping-Ke Shih, Jes.Sorensen, kvalo; +Cc: linux-wireless, yangyingliang
On 2022/12/8 9:41, Ping-Ke Shih wrote:
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Yang Yingliang <yangyingliang@huawei.com>
>> Sent: Thursday, December 8, 2022 9:26 AM
>> To: Ping-Ke Shih <pkshih@realtek.com>; Jes.Sorensen@gmail.com; kvalo@kernel.org
>> Cc: linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org; yangyingliang@huawei.com
>> Subject: Re: [PATCH] wifi: rtl8xxxu: don't call dev_kfree_skb() under spin_lock_irqsave()
>>
>>
>> On 2022/12/8 8:38, Ping-Ke Shih wrote:
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: Yang Yingliang <yangyingliang@huawei.com>
>>>> Sent: Wednesday, December 7, 2022 10:38 PM
>>>> To: Jes.Sorensen@gmail.com; kvalo@kernel.org
>>>> Cc: linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org
>>>> Subject: [PATCH] wifi: rtl8xxxu: don't call dev_kfree_skb() under spin_lock_irqsave()
>>>>
>>>> It is not allowed to call consume_skb() from hardware interrupt context
>>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^ kfree_skb()?
>>> because this patch is to replace dev_kfree_skb().
>>>
>>>> or with interrupts being disabled. So replace dev_kfree_skb() with
>>>> dev_consume_skb_irq() under spin_lock_irqsave(). Compile tested only.
>>>>
>>>> Fixes: 26f1fad29ad9 ("New driver: rtl8xxxu (mac80211)")
>>>> Signed-off-by: Yang Yingliang <yangyingliang@huawei.com>
>>>> ---
>>>> drivers/net/wireless/realtek/rtl8xxxu/rtl8xxxu_core.c | 2 +-
>>>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/drivers/net/wireless/realtek/rtl8xxxu/rtl8xxxu_core.c
>>>> b/drivers/net/wireless/realtek/rtl8xxxu/rtl8xxxu_core.c
>>>> index ac641a56efb0..d0600af5bef4 100644
>>>> --- a/drivers/net/wireless/realtek/rtl8xxxu/rtl8xxxu_core.c
>>>> +++ b/drivers/net/wireless/realtek/rtl8xxxu/rtl8xxxu_core.c
>>>> @@ -5274,7 +5274,7 @@ static void rtl8xxxu_queue_rx_urb(struct rtl8xxxu_priv *priv,
>>>> pending = priv->rx_urb_pending_count;
>>>> } else {
>>>> skb = (struct sk_buff *)rx_urb->urb.context;
>>>> - dev_kfree_skb(skb);
>>>> + dev_consume_skb_irq(skb);
>>> Why not dev_kfree_skb_irq() instead? any reason?
>> #define dev_kfree_skb(a) consume_skb(a)
>> dev_kfree_skb() is consume_skb(), so use dev_consume_skb_irq() instead.
>>
>> static inline void dev_kfree_skb_irq(struct sk_buff *skb)
>> {
>> __dev_kfree_skb_irq(skb, SKB_REASON_DROPPED);
>> }
>>
>> static inline void dev_consume_skb_irq(struct sk_buff *skb)
>> {
>> __dev_kfree_skb_irq(skb, SKB_REASON_CONSUMED);
>> }
>> They have different free reasons.
>>
> It falls into this case because of 'priv->shutdown', so DROPPED reason makes
> sense, no? Or I misunderstand the reason?
Because the origin call is dev_kfree_skb() which is same as
consume_skb(), I called
dev_consume_skb_irq() instead here.
Thanks,
Yang
>
> --
> Ping-Ke
>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] wifi: rtl8xxxu: don't call dev_kfree_skb() under spin_lock_irqsave()
2022-12-08 1:41 ` Ping-Ke Shih
2022-12-08 1:58 ` Yang Yingliang
@ 2022-12-08 13:19 ` Yang Yingliang
1 sibling, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: Yang Yingliang @ 2022-12-08 13:19 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Ping-Ke Shih, Jes.Sorensen, kvalo; +Cc: linux-wireless, yangyingliang
On 2022/12/8 9:41, Ping-Ke Shih wrote:
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Yang Yingliang <yangyingliang@huawei.com>
>> Sent: Thursday, December 8, 2022 9:26 AM
>> To: Ping-Ke Shih <pkshih@realtek.com>; Jes.Sorensen@gmail.com; kvalo@kernel.org
>> Cc: linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org; yangyingliang@huawei.com
>> Subject: Re: [PATCH] wifi: rtl8xxxu: don't call dev_kfree_skb() under spin_lock_irqsave()
>>
>>
>> On 2022/12/8 8:38, Ping-Ke Shih wrote:
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: Yang Yingliang <yangyingliang@huawei.com>
>>>> Sent: Wednesday, December 7, 2022 10:38 PM
>>>> To: Jes.Sorensen@gmail.com; kvalo@kernel.org
>>>> Cc: linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org
>>>> Subject: [PATCH] wifi: rtl8xxxu: don't call dev_kfree_skb() under spin_lock_irqsave()
>>>>
>>>> It is not allowed to call consume_skb() from hardware interrupt context
>>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^ kfree_skb()?
>>> because this patch is to replace dev_kfree_skb().
>>>
>>>> or with interrupts being disabled. So replace dev_kfree_skb() with
>>>> dev_consume_skb_irq() under spin_lock_irqsave(). Compile tested only.
>>>>
>>>> Fixes: 26f1fad29ad9 ("New driver: rtl8xxxu (mac80211)")
>>>> Signed-off-by: Yang Yingliang <yangyingliang@huawei.com>
>>>> ---
>>>> drivers/net/wireless/realtek/rtl8xxxu/rtl8xxxu_core.c | 2 +-
>>>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/drivers/net/wireless/realtek/rtl8xxxu/rtl8xxxu_core.c
>>>> b/drivers/net/wireless/realtek/rtl8xxxu/rtl8xxxu_core.c
>>>> index ac641a56efb0..d0600af5bef4 100644
>>>> --- a/drivers/net/wireless/realtek/rtl8xxxu/rtl8xxxu_core.c
>>>> +++ b/drivers/net/wireless/realtek/rtl8xxxu/rtl8xxxu_core.c
>>>> @@ -5274,7 +5274,7 @@ static void rtl8xxxu_queue_rx_urb(struct rtl8xxxu_priv *priv,
>>>> pending = priv->rx_urb_pending_count;
>>>> } else {
>>>> skb = (struct sk_buff *)rx_urb->urb.context;
>>>> - dev_kfree_skb(skb);
>>>> + dev_consume_skb_irq(skb);
>>> Why not dev_kfree_skb_irq() instead? any reason?
>> #define dev_kfree_skb(a) consume_skb(a)
>> dev_kfree_skb() is consume_skb(), so use dev_consume_skb_irq() instead.
>>
>> static inline void dev_kfree_skb_irq(struct sk_buff *skb)
>> {
>> __dev_kfree_skb_irq(skb, SKB_REASON_DROPPED);
>> }
>>
>> static inline void dev_consume_skb_irq(struct sk_buff *skb)
>> {
>> __dev_kfree_skb_irq(skb, SKB_REASON_CONSUMED);
>> }
>> They have different free reasons.
>>
> It falls into this case because of 'priv->shutdown', so DROPPED reason makes
> sense, no? Or I misunderstand the reason?
You are right, it's better to use dev_kfree_skb_irq(), because this is
called when it's
stopped and need to drop the SKB, I will send a v2 to change it.
Thanks,
Yang
>
> --
> Ping-Ke
>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2022-12-08 13:19 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2022-12-07 14:37 [PATCH] wifi: rtl8xxxu: don't call dev_kfree_skb() under spin_lock_irqsave() Yang Yingliang
2022-12-08 0:38 ` Ping-Ke Shih
2022-12-08 1:25 ` Yang Yingliang
2022-12-08 1:41 ` Ping-Ke Shih
2022-12-08 1:58 ` Yang Yingliang
2022-12-08 13:19 ` Yang Yingliang
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.