On Wed, Oct 24, 2018 at 08:50:52AM +0300, Kalle Valo wrote: > Dan Carpenter <[email protected]> writes: > > > We tried to revert commit d9c52fd17cb4 ("ath9k: fix tx99 with monitor > > mode interface") but accidentally missed part of the locking change. > > > > The lock has to be held earlier so that we're holding it when we do > > "sc->tx99_vif = vif;" and also there in the current code there is a > > stray unlock before we have taken the lock. > > > > Fixes: 6df0580be8bc ("ath9k: add back support for using active monitor > > interfaces for tx99") > > Signed-off-by: Dan Carpenter <[email protected]> > > commit 6df0580be8bc is on it's way to v4.20 so should I also queue this > to v4.20?
Yeah. Obviously this is a static checker thing and I haven't tested it. I don't know if add_interface() is ever called in parallel, but I can imagine that it might be. In that case the race condition is something that would affect real life. Anyway, it's a small obvious fix. regards, dan carpenter
