Hi Ping-Ke,
On Mon, Jul 19, 2021 at 7:47 AM Pkshih <pkshih@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
[...]
> The rcu_read_lock() in this function is used to access ieee80211_find_sta() and protect 'sta'.
> A simple way is to shrink the critical section, like:
>
> rcu_read_lock();
>
> sta = ieee80211_find_sta(vif, bssid);
> if (!sta) {
> rtw_warn(rtwdev, "failed to find station entry for bss %pM\n",
> bssid);
> rcu_read_unlock();
> }
>
> vht_cap = &sta->vht_cap;
>
> rcu_read_unlock();
I agree that reducing the amount of code under the lock will help my
use-case as well
in your code-example I am wondering if we should change
struct ieee80211_sta_vht_cap *vht_cap;
vht_cap = &sta->vht_cap;
to
struct ieee80211_sta_vht_cap vht_cap;
vht_cap = sta->vht_cap;
My thinking is that ieee80211_sta may be freed in parallel to this code running.
If that cannot happen then your code will be fine.
So I am hoping that you can also share your thoughts on this one.
Thank you and best regards,
Martin
