Re: Suspicious RCU usage in mac80211

[Larry Finger <Larry.Finger@lwfinger.net>]

On 05/03/2012 12:12 PM, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Thu, May 03, 2012 at 11:54:29AM -0500, Larry Finger wrote:
>> On 05/03/2012 03:47 AM, Catalin Marinas wrote:
>>>
>>> IIUC, Paul suggested that you should use rcu_dereference_check() here
>>> instead as the protected one is not safe in this context.
>>
>> This patch also fails to fix the problem. Did I do what Paul suggested?
>
> That is indeed what I suggested!
>
> What locks does lockdep say are held?

It varies from instance to instance. I have seen 1, 2, or 3. Those are the 
following:

#0:  (scan_mutex){+.+...}, at: [<ffffffff8113b0d6>] kmemleak_scan_thread+0x56/0xd0
#1:  (&tid_tx->session_timer){+.-...}, at: [<ffffffff8104853a>] 
run_timer_softirq+0xfa/0x6e0
#2:  (rcu_read_lock){.+.+..}, at: [<ffffffffa03c1ff0>] 
sta_tx_agg_session_timer_expired+0x0/0x2a0 [mac80211]


When only 1 lock is held, it is "&tid_tx->session_timer", and that one is held 
in every case. I think that means we need to OR it with the other 
lockdep_is_held() arguments in the rcu_dereference_xxxxx() call, but I did not 
seem to get the syntax right.

Larry