On Mon, 2009-06-01 at 18:30 -0700, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > On Mon, Jun 1, 2009 at 6:23 PM, Luis R. Rodriguez > <lrodriguez@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > There's a few places where we either did not rcu_read_lock() > > prior to addition of a a new sta or we allocated it before > > checking for its existance. In most places, like device open > > and close we should have at least some guarantee the stas are > > wiped but in other places this could not be the case. > > > > Lets protect against RCU in the missing places. The only > > place I see is is in ieee80211_rx_bss_info(). Not sure > > we are calling ieee80211_ibss_add_sta() twice there though. > > > > In our mac80211 cfg80211 callback for device addition we > > also can simplify the code by first checking for the STA > > before trying to add it and then checking for -EEXIST which > > we were not doing. If that actualy would happen we could > > end up potentially with a stale sta and the rate info was > > never updated. It seems cleaner to check for the sta first. > > > > Lastly, we add a WARN_ON() on the STA mlme path upon call to > > ieee80211_rx_mgmt_assoc_resp() for -EEXIST. This should not > > happen, we could just return -EIO or simply ignore it. > > Hm, actually on second thought what if we simply kdoc that you should > check for the sta's existence first prior to addition. Then we can > remove the pesky -EEXIST. Umm, no? Neither approach is correct. johannes
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
