| Commit message (Collapse) | Author | Age | Files | Lines |
|---|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
This reverts commit 5188d5453bc9380ccd4ae1086138dd485d13aef2, because it
introduced lock recursion:
BUG: spinlock recursion on CPU#2, kworker/u13:1/395
lock: 0xffffffc0e28a47f0, .magic: dead4ead, .owner: kworker/u13:1/395, .owner_cpu: 2
CPU: 2 PID: 395 Comm: kworker/u13:1 Not tainted 4.20.0-rc4+ #2
Hardware name: Google Kevin (DT)
Workqueue: MWIFIEX_RX_WORK_QUEUE mwifiex_rx_work_queue [mwifiex]
Call trace:
dump_backtrace+0x0/0x140
show_stack+0x20/0x28
dump_stack+0x84/0xa4
spin_bug+0x98/0xa4
do_raw_spin_lock+0x5c/0xdc
_raw_spin_lock_irqsave+0x38/0x48
mwifiex_flush_data+0x2c/0xa4 [mwifiex]
call_timer_fn+0xcc/0x1c4
run_timer_softirq+0x264/0x4f0
__do_softirq+0x1a8/0x35c
do_softirq+0x54/0x64
netif_rx_ni+0xe8/0x120
mwifiex_recv_packet+0xfc/0x10c [mwifiex]
mwifiex_process_rx_packet+0x1d4/0x238 [mwifiex]
mwifiex_11n_dispatch_pkt+0x190/0x1ac [mwifiex]
mwifiex_11n_rx_reorder_pkt+0x28c/0x354 [mwifiex]
mwifiex_process_sta_rx_packet+0x204/0x26c [mwifiex]
mwifiex_handle_rx_packet+0x15c/0x16c [mwifiex]
mwifiex_rx_work_queue+0x104/0x134 [mwifiex]
worker_thread+0x4cc/0x72c
kthread+0x134/0x13c
ret_from_fork+0x10/0x18
This was clearly not tested well at all. I simply performed 'wget' in a
loop and it fell over within a few seconds.
Fixes: 5188d5453bc9 ("mwifiex: restructure rx_reorder_tbl_lock usage")
Cc: <stable@vger.kernel.org>
Cc: Ganapathi Bhat <gbhat@marvell.com>
Signed-off-by: Brian Norris <briannorris@chromium.org>
Signed-off-by: Kalle Valo <kvalo@codeaurora.org>
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Driver must ensure that whenever it holds a pointer to the list
entry mwifiex_rx_reorder_tbl, it must protect the same with
rx_reorder_tbl_lock. At present there are many places where
driver does not ensure this. To cover all cases, spinlocks in
below funcions are moved out and made sure that the caller will
hold the spinlock:
mwifiex_11n_dispatch_pkt_until_start_win()
mwifiex_11n_scan_and_dispatch()
mwifiex_del_rx_reorder_entry()
mwifiex_11n_get_rx_reorder_tbl()
mwifiex_11n_find_last_seq_num()
Signed-off-by: Ganapathi Bhat <gbhat@marvell.com>
Signed-off-by: Kalle Valo <kvalo@codeaurora.org>
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Fix the following sparse warning in mwifiex_cmd_append_11n_tlv:
drivers/net/wireless/marvell/mwifiex/11n.c:358:65: warning: invalid assignment: &=
drivers/net/wireless/marvell/mwifiex/11n.c:358:65: left side has type restricted __le16
drivers/net/wireless/marvell/mwifiex/11n.c:358:65: right side has type int
drivers/net/wireless/marvell/mwifiex/11n.c:360:65: warning: invalid assignment: &=
drivers/net/wireless/marvell/mwifiex/11n.c:360:65: left side has type restricted __le16
drivers/net/wireless/marvell/mwifiex/11n.c:360:65: right side has type int
drivers/net/wireless/marvell/mwifiex/11n.c:366:65: warning: invalid assignment: &=
drivers/net/wireless/marvell/mwifiex/11n.c:366:65: left side has type restricted __le16
drivers/net/wireless/marvell/mwifiex/11n.c:366:65: right side has type int
drivers/net/wireless/marvell/mwifiex/11n.c:368:65: warning: invalid assignment: &=
drivers/net/wireless/marvell/mwifiex/11n.c:368:65: left side has type restricted __le16
drivers/net/wireless/marvell/mwifiex/11n.c:368:65: right side has type int
Fixes: 77423fa73927 ("mwifiex: fix incorrect ht capability problem")
Signed-off-by: Ganapathi Bhat <gbhat@marvell.com>
Signed-off-by: Kalle Valo <kvalo@codeaurora.org>
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
IEEE80211_CHAN_NO_HT40PLUS and IEEE80211_CHAN_NO_HT40PLUS channel
flags tell if HT40 operation is allowed on a channel or not.
This patch ensures ht_capability information is modified
accordingly so that we don't end up creating a HT40 connection
when it's not allowed for current regulatory domain.
Signed-off-by: Cathy Luo <cluo@marvell.com>
Signed-off-by: Ganapathi Bhat <gbhat@marvell.com>
Signed-off-by: Kalle Valo <kvalo@codeaurora.org>
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
There's absolutely no reason to check to see if a list is empty
before iterating through it. It's just like writing code like
this:
if (count != 0) {
for (i = 0; i < count; i++) {
...
}
}
The loop will already be avoided if "count == 0" so there was no
reason to check.
Signed-off-by: Douglas Anderson <dianders@chromium.org>
Signed-off-by: Ganapathi Bhat <gbhat@marvell.com>
Signed-off-by: Kalle Valo <kvalo@codeaurora.org>
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
uninitilized variable, such as .add_req_result might be magic stack
value. Initialize the structure to make it clean.
Signed-off-by: Xinming Hu <huxm@marvell.com>
Signed-off-by: Cathy Luo <cluo@marvell.com>
Signed-off-by: Kalle Valo <kvalo@codeaurora.org>
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
The mwifiex_11n_delba() function walked the rx_reorder_tbl_ptr without
holding the lock, which was an obvious violation.
Grab the lock.
NOTE: we hold the lock while calling mwifiex_send_delba(). There's also
several callers in 11n_rxreorder.c that hold the lock and the comments
in the struct sound just like very other list/lock pair -- as if the
lock should definitely be help for all operations like this.
Signed-off-by: Douglas Anderson <dianders@chromium.org>
Signed-off-by: Brian Norris <briannorris@chromium.org>
Signed-off-by: Kalle Valo <kvalo@codeaurora.org>
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Despite the macro list_for_each_entry_safe() having the word "safe" in
the name, it's still not actually safe to release the list spinlock
while iterating over the list. The "safe" in the macro name actually
only means that it's safe to delete the current entry while iterating
over the list.
Releasing the spinlock while iterating over the list means that someone
else could come in and adjust the list while we don't have the
spinlock. If they do that it can totally mix up our iteration and fully
corrupt the list. Later iterating over a corrupted list while holding a
spinlock and having IRQs off can cause all sorts of hard to debug
problems.
As evidenced by the other call to
mwifiex_11n_delete_tx_ba_stream_tbl_entry() in
mwifiex_11n_delete_all_tx_ba_stream_tbl(), it's actually safe to skip
the spinlock release. Let's do that.
No known problems are fixed by this patch, but it could fix all sorts of
weird problems and it should be very safe.
Signed-off-by: Douglas Anderson <dianders@chromium.org>
Signed-off-by: Brian Norris <briannorris@chromium.org>
Signed-off-by: Kalle Valo <kvalo@codeaurora.org>
|
|
|
Part of reorganising wireless drivers directory and Kconfig.
Signed-off-by: Kalle Valo <kvalo@codeaurora.org>
|
