Niels Dossche <dossche.niels@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
> On 3/16/22 07:13, Kalle Valo wrote:
>> Niels Dossche <dossche.niels@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
>>
>>> ath11k_peer_find_by_addr states via lockdep that ab->base_lock must be
>>> held when calling that function in order to protect the list. All
>>> callers except ath11k_mac_op_unassign_vif_chanctx have that lock
>>> acquired when calling ath11k_peer_find_by_addr. That lock is also not
>>> transitively held by a path towards ath11k_mac_op_unassign_vif_chanctx.
>>> The solution is to acquire the lock when calling
>>> ath11k_peer_find_by_addr inside ath11k_mac_op_unassign_vif_chanctx.
>>>
>>> Fixes: 701e48a43e15 ("ath11k: add packet log support for QCA6390")
>>> Signed-off-by: Niels Dossche <dossche.niels@xxxxxxxxx>
>>
>> On what hardware and firmware version did you test this?
>>
>
> Thanks for your reply.
> I am currently working on a static analyser to detect missing locks.
> This was a reported case. I manually verified the report by looking
> at the code, so that I do not send wrong information or patches.
> After concluding that this seems to be a true positive, I created this patch.
> However, as I do not in fact have this particular hardware, I was unable to test it.
Ah, I didn't realise this. If you are using a tool to find errors in the
code it's always a good idea to document that in the commit log. I'll
add an edited version of what wrote you above in the commit log, ok?
--
https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/linux-wireless/list/
https://wireless.wiki.kernel.org/en/developers/documentation/submittingpatches
