linux-wireless.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "John W. Linville" <linville@tuxdriver.com>
To: Sven Neumann <s.neumann@raumfeld.com>
Cc: "Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcgrof@gmail.com>,
	libertas-dev@lists.infradead.org, daniel@zonque.org,
	linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] cfg80211: hold reg_mutex when updating regulatory
Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2011 15:14:37 -0400	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20110830191437.GC2660@tuxdriver.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1312100661.687.8.camel@bender>

On Sun, Jul 31, 2011 at 10:24:21AM +0200, Sven Neumann wrote:
> On Mon, 2011-07-25 at 13:21 -0700, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> > On Fri, Jul 22, 2011 at 1:37 PM, Sven Neumann <s.neumann@raumfeld.com> wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > On Fri, 2011-07-15 at 13:32 -0400, John W. Linville wrote:
> > >> Luis, any comment on this?
> > >>
> > >> On Tue, Jul 12, 2011 at 09:52:39AM +0200, Sven Neumann wrote:
> > >> > The function wiphy_update_regulatory() uses the static variable
> > >> > last_request and thus needs to be called with reg_mutex held.
> > >> > This is the case for all users in reg.c, but the function was
> > >> > exported for use by wiphy_register(), from where it is called
> > >> > without the lock being held.
> > >> >
> > >> > Fix this by making wiphy_update_regulatory() private and introducing
> > >> > regulatory_update() as a wrapper that acquires and holds the lock.
> > >> >
> > >> > Signed-off-by: Sven Neumann <s.neumann@raumfeld.com>
> > >
> > > I'd appreciate if someone would review this patch. But probably this is
> > > not really an issue except that it's somewhat ugly to export a function
> > > that should be called with a lock held and that lock is actually
> > > private. But in this particular case it is not a problem, as far as I
> > > can see, since the only user of wiphy_update_regulatory() outside
> > > net/wireless/reg.c is initialization code. So there is not likely going
> > > to be a race condition here.
> > 
> > Apologies for the delay and thanks for the patch. The patch seems good
> > except for the fact that there are so many changes reflected on the
> > patch itself and this can be avoided by splitting the work into a few
> > more patches so that the actual code changes required are reflected
> > cleanly in one patch. Can you perhaps split up your changes so that
> > moves of code are just that and actual code changes are reflected
> > elsewhere?
> 
> Sure, I can do that. But I won't get to it before next week as I am
> currently on vacation.

Did you have a nice vacation?  Are you ready to work on Linux again? :-)

John
-- 
John W. Linville		Someday the world will need a hero, and you
linville@tuxdriver.com			might be all we have.  Be ready.

  reply	other threads:[~2011-08-30 19:15 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 13+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2011-07-12  7:43 patch to fix potential problem with wiphy_update_regulatory Sven Neumann
2011-07-12  7:43 ` [PATCH] cfg80211: hold reg_mutex when updating regulatory Sven Neumann
2011-07-12  7:52 ` patch to fix potential problem with wiphy_update_regulatory (update) Sven Neumann
2011-07-12  7:52 ` [PATCH] cfg80211: hold reg_mutex when updating regulatory Sven Neumann
2011-07-15 17:32   ` John W. Linville
2011-07-22 20:37     ` Sven Neumann
2011-07-25 20:21       ` Luis R. Rodriguez
2011-07-31  8:24         ` Sven Neumann
2011-08-30 19:14           ` John W. Linville [this message]
2011-08-30 21:38             ` [PATCH 1/2] " Sven Neumann
2011-08-30 21:38               ` [PATCH 2/2] cfg80211: reorder code to obsolete forward declaration Sven Neumann
2011-08-30 22:25                 ` Luis R. Rodriguez
2011-08-30 22:24               ` [PATCH 1/2] cfg80211: hold reg_mutex when updating regulatory Luis R. Rodriguez

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=20110830191437.GC2660@tuxdriver.com \
    --to=linville@tuxdriver.com \
    --cc=daniel@zonque.org \
    --cc=libertas-dev@lists.infradead.org \
    --cc=linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mcgrof@gmail.com \
    --cc=s.neumann@raumfeld.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).