Re: BUG: scheduling while atomic: ifconfig/0x00000002/4170

[Johannes Berg]

On Thu, 2007-09-06 at 08:46 -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:

> Looks good to me from an RCU viewpoint.  I cannot claim familiarity with
> this code.  I therefore especially like the indications of where RTNL
> is held and not!!!

:)

> Some questions below based on a quick scan.  And a global question:
> should the comments about RTNL being held be replaced by ASSERT_RTNL()?

I don't like ASSERT_RTNL() much because it actually tries to lock it.
I'd be much happer if it was WARN_ON(!mutex_locked(&rtnl_mutex)) or
something equivalent.

In any case, I have an updated patch I'll be sending soon, and it
requires a new list walking primitive I'll also send.

> > -	write_lock_bh(&local->sub_if_lock);
> > +	/* we're under RTNL so all this is fine */
> >  	if (unlikely(local->reg_state == IEEE80211_DEV_UNREGISTERED)) {
> > -		write_unlock_bh(&local->sub_if_lock);
> >  		__ieee80211_if_del(local, sdata);
> >  		return -ENODEV;
> >  	}
> > -	list_add(&sdata->list, &local->sub_if_list);
> > +	list_add_tail_rcu(&sdata->list, &local->interfaces);
> 
> The _rcu is required because this list isn't protected by RTNL?

Yes, not all walkers of the list are protected by the RTNL.

> > @@ -226,22 +225,22 @@ void ieee80211_if_reinit(struct net_devi
> >  		/* Remove all virtual interfaces that use this BSS
> >  		 * as their sdata->bss */
> >  		struct ieee80211_sub_if_data *tsdata, *n;
> > -		LIST_HEAD(tmp_list);
> > 
> > -		write_lock_bh(&local->sub_if_lock);
> 
> This code is also protected by RTNL?

Yes.

> >  	ASSERT_RTNL();
> 
> I -like- this!!!  ;-)

:)

johannes

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part