From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Satyam Sharma <satyam-wEGCiKHe2LqWVfeAwA7xHQ@public.gmane.org>
Subject: Re: BUG: scheduling while atomic: ifconfig/0x00000002/4170
Date: Thu, 6 Sep 2007 18:22:24 +0530 (IST)
Message-ID: <alpine.LFD.0.999.0709061818270.3781@enigma.security.iitk.ac.in>
References: <20070902184439.GA14306@paradigm.rfc822.org>
 <6bffcb0e0709021659o3856cd06gabc054c949a84397@mail.gmail.com>
 <alpine.LFD.0.999.0709060923340.26804@enigma.security.iitk.ac.in>
 <20070906082301.GB21929@gondor.apana.org.au>
 <1189080575.28781.65.camel@johannes.berg>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=UTF-8
Cc: Herbert Xu <herbert-lOAM2aK0SrRLBo1qDEOMRrpzq4S04n8Q@public.gmane.org>,
	Florian Lohoff <flo-BCn6idZOOBwdnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org>,
	Netdev <netdev-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org>, linux-wireless-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org,
	Michal Piotrowski <michal.k.k.piotrowski-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org>,
	ipw3945-devel-5NWGOfrQmneRv+LV9MX5uipxlwaOVQ5f@public.gmane.org, yi.zhu-ral2JQCrhuEAvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org,
	Michael Wu <flamingice-R9e9/4HEdknk1uMJSBkQmQ@public.gmane.org>
To: Johannes Berg <johannes-cdvu00un1VgdHxzADdlk8Q@public.gmane.org>
Return-path: <linux-wireless-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org>
In-Reply-To: <1189080575.28781.65.camel-YfaajirXv214zXjbi5bjpg@public.gmane.org>
Sender: linux-wireless-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org
List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org



On Thu, 6 Sep 2007, Johannes Berg wrote:

> On Thu, 2007-09-06 at 16:23 +0800, Herbert Xu wrote:
> > On Thu, Sep 06, 2007 at 10:32:33AM +0530, Satyam Sharma wrote:
> > > 
> > > > > [  382.529041]  [<c02c8abc>] dev_close+0x24/0x67
> > > > > [  382.529052]  [<e01f402b>] ieee80211_master_stop+0x4a/0x6d [mac80211]
> > 
> > This is where the bug is.  You cannot call dev_close from an
> > atomic context as i33380211_master_stop does it within spin
> > locks.
> 
> Hah, I suspected as much but didn't have a chance to look yet. I had
> plans to replace that sub_if_list with an RCU list and not require the
> lock there, but that's far off.

Unless I missed something obvious (let me know if that's the case! :-)
an RCU-protected list would suffer the same fate. list_for_each_xxx_rcu()
must be under rcu_read_lock() which == preempt_disable() ...