Hi Brian,
> On Tue, Oct 31, 2017 at 03:12:45PM +0530, Ganapathi Bhat wrote:
> > From: Karthik Ananthapadmanabha <[email protected]>
> >
> > Fix the incorrect usage of rx_pkt_lock spinlock. Realsing the spinlock
> > while the element is still in process is unsafe. The lock must be
> > released only after the element processing is complete.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Karthik Ananthapadmanabha <[email protected]>
> > Signed-off-by: Ganapathi Bhat <[email protected]>
> > ---
> > drivers/net/wireless/marvell/mwifiex/11n_rxreorder.c | 5 +++--
> > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/net/wireless/marvell/mwifiex/11n_rxreorder.c
> > b/drivers/net/wireless/marvell/mwifiex/11n_rxreorder.c
> > index 1edcdda..0149c4a 100644
> > --- a/drivers/net/wireless/marvell/mwifiex/11n_rxreorder.c
> > +++ b/drivers/net/wireless/marvell/mwifiex/11n_rxreorder.c
> > @@ -124,9 +124,10 @@ static int mwifiex_11n_dispatch_pkt(struct
> mwifiex_private *priv, void *payload)
> > rx_tmp_ptr = tbl->rx_reorder_ptr[i];
> > tbl->rx_reorder_ptr[i] = NULL;
> > }
> > - spin_unlock_irqrestore(&priv->rx_pkt_lock, flags);
>
> So, what is this lock protecting? Is it for protecting the packet itself, or
> for
> protecting the ring buffer?
This lock is protecting the ring buffer but with the current change, we are
trying also to protect the packet too.
> As I read it, it's just the latter, since once we've
> removed it from the ring buffer (and are about to dispatch it up toward the
> networking layer), it's handled only by a single context (or else, protected
> via
> some other common lock(s)).
>
> If I'm correct above, then I think the current code here is actually safe,
> since
> it holds the lock while removing from the ring buffer -- after it's removed
> from the ring, there's no way another thread can find this payload, and so we
> can release the lock.
There are cases where the ring buffer is iterated by cfg80211 thread:
mwifiex_cfg80211_tdls_oper => mwifiex_tdls_oper =>
mwifiex_tdls_process_disable_link => mwifiex_11n_cleanup_reorder_tbl =>
mwifiex_del_rx_reorder_entry => mwifiex_11n_dispatch_pkt_until_start_win =>
{iterates the ring buffer}
So, at worst case we can have two threads (main & cfg80211) running
mwifiex_11n_dispatch_pkt_until_start_win(), iterating the ring buffer.
>
> On a related note: I don't actually see the ring buffer *insertion* being
> protected by this rx_pkt_lock, so is it really useful? See
> mwifiex_11n_rx_reorder_pkt(). Perhaps the correct lock is actually
> rx_reorder_tbl_lock()? Except that serves multiple purposes it seems...
Right, ring buffer insertion is not protected. I think we should be using both
rx_reorder_tbl_lock(which is already present) and rx_pkt_lock(we need to add)
during insertion (mwifiex_11n_rx_reorder_pkt()).
Also, we should be using rx_pkt_lock instead of rx_reorder_tbl_lock in
mwifiex_11n_find_last_seq_num().
>
> Another thought: from what I can tell, all of these operations are
> *only* performed on the main thread, so there's actually no concurrency
> involved at all. So we also could probably drop this lock entirely...
Let us know your inputs on above observations.
>
> I guess the real point is: can you explain better what you intend this lock to
> do? Then we can review whether you're accomplishing your intention, or
> whether we should improve the usage of this lock in some other way, or
> perhaps even kill it entirely.
>
> Thanks,
> Brian
>
> > if (rx_tmp_ptr)
> > mwifiex_11n_dispatch_pkt(priv, rx_tmp_ptr);
> > +
> > + spin_unlock_irqrestore(&priv->rx_pkt_lock, flags);
> > }
> >
> > spin_lock_irqsave(&priv->rx_pkt_lock, flags); @@ -167,8 +168,8 @@
> > static int mwifiex_11n_dispatch_pkt(struct mwifiex_private *priv, void
> *payload)
> > }
> > rx_tmp_ptr = tbl->rx_reorder_ptr[i];
> > tbl->rx_reorder_ptr[i] = NULL;
> > - spin_unlock_irqrestore(&priv->rx_pkt_lock, flags);
> > mwifiex_11n_dispatch_pkt(priv, rx_tmp_ptr);
> > + spin_unlock_irqrestore(&priv->rx_pkt_lock, flags);
> > }
> >
> > spin_lock_irqsave(&priv->rx_pkt_lock, flags);
> > --
> > 1.9.1
> >
Regards,
Ganapathi
