Re: [PATCH RFC v1 3/7] rtw88: Use rtw_iterate_stas where the iterator reads or writes registers

Martin Blumenstingl
2021-07-25T21:51:25Z

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2308 bytes --]

Hi Johannes, Hi Ping-Ke,

On Mon, Jul 19, 2021 at 8:36 AM Johannes Berg <johannes@sipsolutions.net> wrote:
>
> On Sat, 2021-07-17 at 22:40 +0200, Martin Blumenstingl wrote:
> >
> > --- a/drivers/net/wireless/realtek/rtw88/mac80211.c
> > +++ b/drivers/net/wireless/realtek/rtw88/mac80211.c
> > @@ -721,7 +721,7 @@ static void rtw_ra_mask_info_update(struct rtw_dev *rtwdev,
> > br_data.rtwdev = rtwdev;
> > br_data.vif = vif;
> > br_data.mask = mask;
> > - rtw_iterate_stas_atomic(rtwdev, rtw_ra_mask_info_update_iter, &br_data);
> > + rtw_iterate_stas(rtwdev, rtw_ra_mask_info_update_iter, &br_data);
>
> And then you pretty much immediately break that invariant here, namely
> that you're calling this within the set_bitrate_mask() method called by
> mac80211.
you are right, I was not aware of this

> That's not actually fundamentally broken today, but it does *severely*
> restrict what we can do in mac80211 wrt. locking, and I really don't
> want to keep the dozen or so locks forever, this needs simplification
> because clearly we don't even know what should be under what lock.
To me it's also not clear what the goal of the whole locking is.
The lock in ieee80211_iterate_stations_atomic is obviously for the
mac80211-internal state-machine
But I *believe* that there's a second purpose (rtw88 specific) -
here's my understanding of that part:
- rtw_sta_info contains a "mac_id" which is an identifier for a
specific station used by the rtw88 driver and is shared with the
firmware
- rtw_ops_sta_{add,remove} uses rtwdev->mutex to protect the rtw88
side of this "mac_id" identifier
- (for some reason rtw_update_sta_info doesn't use rtwdev->mutex)

So now I am wondering if the ieee80211_iterate_stations_atomic lock is
also used to protect any modifications to rtw_sta_info.
Ping-Ke, I am wondering if the attached patch (untested - to better
demonstrate what I want to say) would:
- allow us to move the register write outside of
ieee80211_iterate_stations_atomic
- mean we can keep ieee80211_iterate_stations_atomic (instead of the
non-atomic variant)
- protect the code managing the "mac_id" with rtwdev->mutex consistently

> The other cases look OK, it's being called from outside contexts
> (wowlan, etc.)
Thanks for reviewing this Johannes!

Best regards,
Martin

[-- Attachment #2: rtw_update_sta_info-outside-rtw_iterate_stas_atomic.patch --]
[-- Type: text/x-patch, Size: 1505 bytes --]

diff --git a/drivers/net/wireless/realtek/rtw88/mac80211.c b/drivers/net/wireless/realtek/rtw88/mac80211.c
index 7650a1ca0e9e..be39c6d0ee31 100644
--- a/drivers/net/wireless/realtek/rtw88/mac80211.c
+++ b/drivers/net/wireless/realtek/rtw88/mac80211.c
@@ -689,6 +689,8 @@ struct rtw_iter_bitrate_mask_data {
struct rtw_dev *rtwdev;
struct ieee80211_vif *vif;
const struct cfg80211_bitrate_mask *mask;
+ unsigned int num_si;
+ struct rtw_sta_info *si[RTW_MAX_MAC_ID_NUM];
};

static void rtw_ra_mask_info_update_iter(void *data, struct ieee80211_sta *sta)
@@ -709,7 +711,8 @@ static void rtw_ra_mask_info_update_iter(void *data, struct ieee80211_sta *sta)
}

si->use_cfg_mask = true;
- rtw_update_sta_info(br_data->rtwdev, si);
+
+ br_data->si[br_data->num_si++] = si;
}

static void rtw_ra_mask_info_update(struct rtw_dev *rtwdev,
@@ -717,11 +720,20 @@ static void rtw_ra_mask_info_update(struct rtw_dev *rtwdev,
const struct cfg80211_bitrate_mask *mask)
{
struct rtw_iter_bitrate_mask_data br_data;
+ unsigned int i;
+
+ mutex_lock(&rtwdev->mutex);

br_data.rtwdev = rtwdev;
br_data.vif = vif;
br_data.mask = mask;
- rtw_iterate_stas(rtwdev, rtw_ra_mask_info_update_iter, &br_data);
+ br_data.num_si = 0;
+ rtw_iterate_stas_atomic(rtwdev, rtw_ra_mask_info_update_iter, &br_data);
+
+ for (i = 0; i < br_data.num_si; i++)
+ rtw_update_sta_info(rtwdev, br_data.si[i]);
+
+ mutex_unlock(&rtwdev->mutex);
}

static int rtw_ops_set_bitrate_mask(struct ieee80211_hw *hw,