Search Linux Wireless

Re: [PATCH 2.6.38-rc8-wl RESEND] orinoco: Clear dangling pointer on hardware busy

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On 21/03/2011 08:21, armadefuego@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
On hardware busy the scan request pointer should be cleared, as higher levels will release. This avoids a crash when that pointer is erroneously used later.

I think you need to add line breaks for the git log

Signed-off-by: Joseph J. Gunn<armadefuego@xxxxxxxxx>
---
When the hardware is busy the error is propagated to higher levels on the stack. Those layers release the buffer. Therefore the copy of the pointer must be erased. Otherwise subsequent events checking this pointer ma crash.
---
diff --git a/drivers/net/wireless/orinoco/cfg.c b/drivers/net/wireless/orinoco/cfg.c
index 09fae2f..2022815 100644
--- a/drivers/net/wireless/orinoco/cfg.c
+++ b/drivers/net/wireless/orinoco/cfg.c
@@ -151,8 +151,17 @@ static int orinoco_scan(struct wiphy *wiphy, struct net_device *dev,
  		return -EBUSY;

  	priv->scan_request = request;
+	DEBUG(3, "orinoco_scan():"
+		" scan_request %p wiphy %p, dev %p\n",
+		priv->scan_request,
+		priv->scan_request->wiphy,
+		priv->scan_request->dev
+		);

  	err = orinoco_hw_trigger_scan(priv, request->ssids);
+	/* On EBUSY the hardware is busy. We aren't processing the request */
+	if (err == -EBUSY)

We should reset priv->scan_request on all errors, not just -EBUSY. Were you getting this in a particular situation? If so, highlighting it in the commit log is useful.

I notice -EBUSY is returned when we can't get the orinoco_lock - are you having an issue with lock cotention on a particular device?

+		priv->scan_request = NULL;

  	return err;
  }
diff --git a/drivers/net/wireless/orinoco/scan.c b/drivers/net/wireless/orinoco/scan.c
index e99ca1c..698e9ff 100644
--- a/drivers/net/wireless/orinoco/scan.c
+++ b/drivers/net/wireless/orinoco/scan.c
@@ -230,6 +230,12 @@ void orinoco_add_hostscan_results(struct orinoco_private *priv,

   scan_abort:
  	if (priv->scan_request) {
+		DEBUG(3, "orinoco_add_hostscan_results():"
+			" scan_request %p wiphy %p, dev %p\n",
+			priv->scan_request,
+			priv->scan_request->wiphy,
+			priv->scan_request->dev
+			);

I'm not a big fan of scattering DEBUG statements about, but if we're going to, use __FUNCTION__ (or whatever the C99 incarnation is) rather than explicitly naming the functions.


Dave.
--
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


[Index of Archives]     [Linux Host AP]     [ATH6KL]     [Linux Bluetooth]     [Linux Netdev]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Linux Kernel]     [IDE]     [Security]     [Git]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Linux ATA RAID]     [Samba]     [Device Mapper]
  Powered by Linux