From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from sipsolutions.net (s3.sipsolutions.net [168.119.38.16]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8B29A33D8 for ; Thu, 19 Sep 2024 10:22:13 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=168.119.38.16 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1726741335; cv=none; b=ocgi8g/yXfh66+svPiU0vCypFgbognR/tWzmfzWGaXefqXnrUtzw2eFQHALLQuttzn13eCsPupony77/saM7KZ2c0DfhweLve7Srvruv5ArGE8sJrvQYUxBIFE8cdqII5J1S30tmSzVZC7/pPvh4wacQKQcZyw+J/kUG8mVNhLA= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1726741335; c=relaxed/simple; bh=9dvtS0sx+I9r5PYxctr8A5lLqtzdjKgsQ8ix4ubX0yo=; h=Message-ID:Subject:From:To:Date:In-Reply-To:References: Content-Type:MIME-Version; b=ESU/WcXxwskgepUPHO7ZyWDfboQccBKsv6wEeQLptuBxlDlhIx4GcDJHkN1SB03wKTWCoBCK+JPwRgwtkNpZnUlxXH1iRGLBmDRGdNITvlmgjxszfo++rb219fVfrsEFpjAsPK2rF25ZLus1P2uSi1Nky6CCQqusOyHKEsHTlmE= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=sipsolutions.net; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=sipsolutions.net; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=sipsolutions.net header.i=@sipsolutions.net header.b=RefKkpwC; arc=none smtp.client-ip=168.119.38.16 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=sipsolutions.net Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=sipsolutions.net Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=sipsolutions.net header.i=@sipsolutions.net header.b="RefKkpwC" DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=sipsolutions.net; s=mail; h=MIME-Version:Content-Transfer-Encoding: Content-Type:References:In-Reply-To:Date:To:From:Subject:Message-ID:Sender: Reply-To:Cc:Content-ID:Content-Description:Resent-Date:Resent-From:Resent-To: Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID; bh=9dvtS0sx+I9r5PYxctr8A5lLqtzdjKgsQ8ix4ubX0yo=; t=1726741333; x=1727950933; b=RefKkpwCD9Fx3SZm9vly3xJMifK6wddTQHn/snwYiECEHx+ u3jQL/AhB/HTouhVepMQxQ6TBn+r81/fhiYGlbkVi3eUnvNI3Cxgt15Myytd42MzzEAZOqf0uW5J7 uuRta5w9e2hfwbHb7q94JvXOkI/HvXEyy/L5khAOThN7PM1G+96yFbyCN9zGUcUuLAMypcFF1/tOn 9NoXjYcLPCUVUvB8BV/O0hRa0DWL0TREZsxOvyZAoHRnE2qRDAqzUd97NaOiQJFwvlEKyCJTuljos kIv1Zwi6AGx1kbYinYZxosEDxIc4HZVdb3vRQURNvgoLNySxaThid6wDumKCTl+A==; Received: by sipsolutions.net with esmtpsa (TLS1.3:ECDHE_X25519__RSA_PSS_RSAE_SHA256__AES_256_GCM:256) (Exim 4.97) (envelope-from ) id 1srEId-00000003pIE-08F7; Thu, 19 Sep 2024 12:22:11 +0200 Message-ID: Subject: Re: Missing wiphy lock in ieee80211_color_collision_detection_work From: Johannes Berg To: Nicolas Cavallari , Nicolas Escande , linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org Date: Thu, 19 Sep 2024 12:22:10 +0200 In-Reply-To: References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable User-Agent: Evolution 3.52.4 (3.52.4-1.fc40) Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-malware-bazaar: not-scanned On Thu, 2024-09-19 at 12:02 +0200, Nicolas Cavallari wrote: >=20 > > Did I miss something ? Which one should we do ? I'm not sure of all the > > implications of switching to the wiphy work queue and why it did not ge= t > > converted like the color_change_finalize_work stuff ? >=20 > ieee80211_color_collision_detection_work() used to lock the wdev mutex, n= ow it=20 > does not hold anything since 076fc8775da("wifi: cfg80211: remove wdev mut= ex") >=20 > Also the rate limiting uses delayed_work_pending(), There is no wiphy wor= k queue=20 > equivalent AFAIK, so the explicit lock is probably the way to go. That won't work, it's cancel_delayed_work_sync() under the wiphy mutex, so that'll cause deadlocks (and should cause lockdep complaints about them.) johannes