From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Kalle Valo Date: Thu, 01 Jun 2017 07:27:20 +0300 Subject: [PATCH] b43legacy: Fix a sleep-in-atomic bug in b43legacy_op_bss_info_changed In-Reply-To: <20170531173107.25eeda48@wiggum> ("Michael \=\?utf-8\?Q\?B\=C3\=BCs\?\= \=\?utf-8\?Q\?ch\=22's\?\= message of "Wed, 31 May 2017 17:32:15 +0200") References: <1496225353-5544-1-git-send-email-baijiaju1990@163.com> <877f0xnwyk.fsf@kamboji.qca.qualcomm.com> <20170531173107.25eeda48@wiggum> Message-ID: <878tlcmixj.fsf@kamboji.qca.qualcomm.com> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: Michael =?utf-8?Q?B=C3=BCsch?= Cc: Jia-Ju Bai , netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org, b43-dev@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Larry.Finger@lwfinger.net Michael B?sch writes: >> > --- a/drivers/net/wireless/broadcom/b43legacy/main.c >> > +++ b/drivers/net/wireless/broadcom/b43legacy/main.c >> > @@ -2859,7 +2859,9 @@ static void b43legacy_op_bss_info_changed(struct ieee80211_hw *hw, >> > b43legacy_write32(dev, B43legacy_MMIO_GEN_IRQ_MASK, 0); >> > >> > if (changed & BSS_CHANGED_BSSID) { >> > + spin_unlock_irqrestore(&wl->irq_lock, flags); >> > b43legacy_synchronize_irq(dev); >> > + spin_lock_irqsave(&wl->irq_lock, flags); >> >> To me this looks like a fragile workaround and not a real fix. You can >> easily add new race conditions with releasing the lock like this. >> > > > I think releasing the lock possibly is fine. It certainly is better than > sleeping with a lock held. Sure, but IMHO in general I think the practise of releasing the lock like this in a middle of function is dangerous as one can easily miss that upper and lower halves of the function are not actually atomic anymore. And in this case that it's under a conditional makes it even worse. -- Kalle Valo