Re: [PATCH V3] mac80211: fix paged defragmentation

[Johannes Berg <johannes@sipsolutions.net>]

On Tue, 2010-05-11 at 11:52 -0700, Abhijeet Kolekar wrote:
> Hello John,
> On Tue, 2010-05-11 at 11:24 -0700, John W. Linville wrote:
> > On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 11:16:50AM -0700, Abhijeet Kolekar wrote:
> > > Hello John,
> > > On Tue, 2010-05-11 at 11:14 -0700, John W. Linville wrote:
> > > > On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 11:22:11AM -0700, Abhijeet Kolekar wrote:
> > > > > Paged RX skb patch broke the defragmentation. We need to read hdr again
> > > > > after linearization.
> > > > > 
> > > > > It fixes following bug
> > > > > http://bugzilla.intellinuxwireless.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2194
> > > > > 
> > > > > Signed-off-by: Zhu, Yi <yi.zhu@intel.com>
> > > > > Signed-off-by: Abhijeet Kolekar <abhijeet.kolekar@intel.com>
> > > > > ---
> > > > > v2: Changed hdr reading.
> > > > > v3: Added more comments.
> > > > >  net/mac80211/rx.c |    6 ++++++
> > > > >  1 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
> > > > > 
> > > > > diff --git a/net/mac80211/rx.c b/net/mac80211/rx.c
> > > > > index 9a08f2c..6e2a7bc 100644
> > > > > --- a/net/mac80211/rx.c
> > > > > +++ b/net/mac80211/rx.c
> > > > > @@ -1253,6 +1253,12 @@ ieee80211_rx_h_defragment(struct ieee80211_rx_data *rx)
> > > > >  	if (skb_linearize(rx->skb))
> > > > >  		return RX_DROP_UNUSABLE;
> > > > >  
> > > > > +	/*
> > > > > +	 *  skb_linearize() might change the skb->data and
> > > > > +	 *  previously cached variables (in this case, hdr) need to
> > > > > +	 *  be refreshed with the new data.
> > > > > +	 */
> > > > > +	hdr = (struct ieee80211_hdr *)rx->skb->data;
> > > > >  	seq = (sc & IEEE80211_SCTL_SEQ) >> 4;
> > > > >  
> > > > >  	if (frag == 0) {
> > > > 
> > > > And what about making sure the compiler doesn't optimize this away?
> > > > 
> > >  To avoid the double assignment, there is one more approach is to
> > > directly read fc and seq_ctrl  using skb_data. I will send that in the
> > > next version.
> > 
> > I don't think the double assignment is so bad, I just think that a
> > compiler might decide to ignore the second assignment.  Am I wrong?
> > 
> I don't understand why compiler will ignore the second assignment other
> than the above reason. What will be the solution in this case?

ACCESS_ONCE()? I have no idea why/if the compiler would actually do this
though.

johannes