On Mon, 2013-02-25 at 12:50 +0100, Stanislaw Gruszka wrote:
> Is possible that we close interface while we are suspended, that
> results in warning like below (and some others similar):
>
> WARNING: at net/mac80211/driver-ops.h:12 ieee80211_do_stop+0x62e/0x670 [mac80211]()
> wlan0: Failed check-sdata-in-driver check, flags: 0x4
> @@ -834,16 +835,18 @@ static void ieee80211_do_stop(struct ieee80211_sub_if_data *sdata,
>
> skb_queue_purge(&sdata->skb_queue);
>
> - /*
> - * Free all remaining keys, there shouldn't be any,
> - * except maybe group keys in AP more or WDS?
> - */
> - ieee80211_free_keys(sdata);
> -
> drv_remove_interface_debugfs(local, sdata);
>
> - if (going_down)
> - drv_remove_interface(local, sdata);
> + if (!local->suspended) {
> + /*
> + * There shouldn't be any kays, sice we disconnected
> + * before suspend.
> + */
> + WARN_ON(!list_empty(&sdata->key_list));
This is wrong -- you're now leaking the keys after a warning; freeing
the keys had nothing to do with suspend originally. You shouldn't change
this, in fact you should just move the comment & code I think.
More generally, does this really make much sense? There are other things
here, e.g. ieee80211_configure_filter(), ieee80211_recalc_ps(),
ieee80211_hw_config() and probably more that can be executed in this
function -- I don't think protecting these two calls is really
sufficient?
I think it'd be smarter to delay the down until resumed, or so.
johannes
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-wireless" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
