On 2010-11-03 6:31 PM, Björn Smedman wrote: > 2010/11/3 Felix Fietkau <n...@openwrt.org>: >> On 2010-11-03 5:27 PM, Björn Smedman wrote: >>> Ok, regardless. So lets say there is a bug in mac80211 that allows a >>> "mismatch" between header qos tid and skb queue mapping to occur >>> (which in fact there is because this happens all the time with my >>> frame injection heavy app). Then it's ok for ath9k to screw up the >>> locking, possibly corrupt data and so on, silently? >> I don't see potential for locking issues or data corruption here, even >> if such a bug were to show up. > > Then I think this is the only point we really disagree on. :) > > It goes like this. When we get to ath_tx_start_dma() there already is > a txq assigned (passed as txctl->txq) and we lock that txq. Then, if > it's aggregation data we look up the tid: > > an = (struct ath_node *)tx_info->control.sta->drv_priv; > tid = ATH_AN_2_TID(an, bf->bf_tidno); > > Notice how bf->bf_tidno is used. This contains the TID from the 802.11 > header qos field. That means tid->ac->txq may not be the same as > txctl->txq if there is a mismatch between frame data and skb queue > mapping. Now we call ath_tx_send_ampdu() which presumes the txq (and > therefore the associated tid) is already locked and starts fiddling > with e.g. tid->buf_q, in this case without holding > tid->ac->txq->axq_lock. This is racy e.g. against ath_draintxq() / > ath_txq_drain_pending_buffers() which does not know about this madness > and locks the correct txq. Hmm, I guess you have a point there ;)
>> I'm not saying we should assume that everything is always fine, but I do >> object to adding defensive code against made up scenarios of potential >> bugs that "might" be introduced at some point in the future. > > I can see your point. I don't want lots of defensive stuff (like what > you removed in your patch). But I still feel the balance is wrong. > Take one recent case for example: We're not 100% sure we can always > stop RX dma. In fact, a few weeks ago we weren't even sure what we > didn't start it when we weren't supposed to. Yet for some reason there > seems to be a consensus it is a good idea to keep ds_data of all those > dma descriptors pointing at arbitrary kernel data. I realize it takes > some time and adds some clutter to do "ds_data = 0". I also understand > it does not help in all cases. But I think it's a reasonable > precaution under the circumstances. It's like in medicine, patients > will die but when they do you want to be able to say "we did > everything we could". ;) Actually, when dealing with hardware pointers, I'm not sure setting them to 0 makes things any better, since 0 still points to a physical RAM location :) - Felix _______________________________________________ ath9k-devel mailing list ath9k-devel@lists.ath9k.org https://lists.ath9k.org/mailman/listinfo/ath9k-devel
