From: Johannes Berg <johannes@sipsolutions.net>
To: Arik Nemtsov <arik@wizery.com>
Cc: "linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org" <linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org>,
"Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcgrof@suse.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] cfg80211: fix deadlock during reg chan check
Date: Wed, 07 Jan 2015 14:37:51 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1420637871.3407.10.camel@sipsolutions.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CA+XVXfeFWbVLCpebTQpv9FZPaDUEt1NJ6GpnyRoZ1UG91nMymw@mail.gmail.com> (sfid-20150107_143425_279464_1C23BEE0)
On Wed, 2015-01-07 at 15:34 +0200, Arik Nemtsov wrote:
> > I'm not convinced this is the right thing to do. When checking for the
> > current wdev that it can use a channel, then it seems that it's own
> > current BSS connection (if any) shouldn't actually be taken into account
> > - ergo the lock shouldn't have to be taken, that interface should be
> > excluded from the "can beacon due to concurrent check" anyway.
>
> We have a couple of checks we want to add in the pipeline that also
> need "this" wdev in the concurrent check, so I'd prefer to avoid this.
Why would you need to check "this" wdev when doing something for "this"
wdev? Seems odd? But I'm willing to learn :)
> Unless we treat the exclude_wdev as "already locked wdev", which I
> think is unglier than what I do here.
Yeah that doesn't seem right, agree.
> > Also, the only reason this can happen anyway is when you call "can
> > beacon" for a station interface - which seems nonsensical. Given that
>
> This is not true. This happens with current code for a p2p-go
> interface during channel validity checks in reg.c.
Not sure I see this? The only thing doing wdev locking is
cfg80211_go_permissive_chan(), no? And that only for station interfaces.
johannes
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-01-07 13:37 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2014-12-29 9:59 [PATCH] cfg80211: fix deadlock during reg chan check Arik Nemtsov
2015-01-06 10:51 ` Johannes Berg
2015-01-07 13:34 ` Arik Nemtsov
2015-01-07 13:37 ` Johannes Berg [this message]
2015-01-07 13:42 ` Arik Nemtsov
2015-01-07 13:46 ` Johannes Berg
2015-01-07 13:48 ` Arik Nemtsov
2015-01-07 13:50 ` Johannes Berg
2015-01-07 13:52 ` Arik Nemtsov
2015-01-07 13:54 ` Johannes Berg
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=1420637871.3407.10.camel@sipsolutions.net \
--to=johannes@sipsolutions.net \
--cc=arik@wizery.com \
--cc=linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mcgrof@suse.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).