Re: Lots of confusion on bss refcounting.

[Ben Greear <greearb@candelatech.com>]

On 06/17/2013 12:09 PM, Ben Greear wrote:
> On 06/17/2013 12:02 PM, Johannes Berg wrote:

> The bss reference is passed back, and through luck or careful programming,
> it *seems* that all paths related to calling ieee80211_rx_mgmt_assoc_resp
> managed to consume the bss.
>
> I haven't figured out yet why this is not an erroneous put since I didn't
> find the reference taken in the first place.
>
> I'm going to work on making some changes to the ref counting scheme
> a bit.  I'd rather have the code perhaps take and put a few refs
> it might otherwise skip to keep the ownership cleaner and make
> the code easier to debug and understand...
>
> I'll post some for RFC when I make some progress.

I think I found at least some of the leaks.

In places like ieee80211_mgd_stop, we were calling ieee80211_destroy_assoc_data,
but it was not putting the bss reference.

I'll post some RFC patches in a minute or two...first is debugging
logic, second attempts to fix bss ref counting.  This needs more
testing before it is applied...we will continue testing it....

Thanks,
Ben

-- 
Ben Greear <greearb@candelatech.com>
Candela Technologies Inc  http://www.candelatech.com