On Tue, 2011-05-31 at 21:46 +0200, Felix Fietkau wrote:
> On 2011-05-31 9:31 PM, Johannes Berg wrote:
> > On Tue, 2011-05-31 at 21:16 +0200, Felix Fietkau wrote:
> >
> >> + rcu_read_lock();
> >> +
> >> + sta = sta_info_get(sdata, sdata->u.wds.remote_addr);
> >> +
> >> + if (!sta) {
> >> + rcu_read_unlock();
> >> + sta = sta_info_alloc(sdata, sdata->u.wds.remote_addr,
> >> + GFP_KERNEL);
> >> + if (!sta)
> >> + return;
> >> +
> >> + new = true;
> >> + }
> >
> > ...
> >
> >> + rcu_read_unlock();
> >
> > definitely doesn't look right.
> It's a bit weird because in the case of a new sta being allocated, the
> rcu read lock is acquired by sta_info_insert_rcu, and the code inbetween
> does not need to be covered by the rcu read lock as the sta entry has
> not been added to the list yet.
> It should be correct though, unless I'm missing something...
Oh right, I forgot about that.
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
