Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> On Wed, Oct 24, 2018 at 08:50:52AM +0300, Kalle Valo wrote:
>> Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@xxxxxxxxxx> 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 <dan.carpenter@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>
>> 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.
Ok, I'll then queue this to v4.20. But I would appreciate if others
could test or review this.
--
Kalle Valo
