Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752158AbaJPRUL (ORCPT ); Thu, 16 Oct 2014 13:20:11 -0400 Received: from mail-la0-f46.google.com ([209.85.215.46]:43145 "EHLO mail-la0-f46.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751381AbaJPRUI (ORCPT ); Thu, 16 Oct 2014 13:20:08 -0400 Message-ID: <1413480005.16330.15.camel@umadbro> Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] mac80211: OCB mode + join and leave handling From: Rostislav Lisovy To: Johannes Berg Cc: linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Michal Sojka , s.sander@nordsys.de, jan-niklas.meier@volkswagen.de, burak.simsek@volkswagen.de, Emmanuel Thierry , laszlo.virag@commsignia.com, Rostislav Lisovy Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2014 19:20:05 +0200 In-Reply-To: <1413477188.15416.10.camel@umadbro> References: <1410445822-6559-1-git-send-email-rostislav.lisovy@fel.cvut.cz> <1410445822-6559-2-git-send-email-rostislav.lisovy@fel.cvut.cz> (sfid-20140911_163047_025105_09D86D44) <1412843005.1828.14.camel@jlt4.sipsolutions.net> <1413477188.15416.10.camel@umadbro> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Mailer: Evolution 3.10.4-0ubuntu2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, 2014-10-16 at 18:33 +0200, Rostislav Lisovy wrote: > > > + mutex_lock(&sdata->local->mtx); > > > + ieee80211_vif_release_channel(sdata); > > > + mutex_unlock(&sdata->local->mtx); > > > + > > > + skb_queue_purge(&sdata->skb_queue); > > > + > > > + del_timer_sync(&sdata->u.ocb.housekeeping_timer); > > > > That might call the timer - is it safe if that happens here? Looks like > > maybe the housekeeping would still get triggered or so. > > You are right. I hope the following is a reasonable solution (in form of > a patch to my previous patch; comment stolen from some prehistoric > version of mesh.c): > > @@ -127,6 +127,9 @@ void ieee80211_ocb_work(struct ieee80211_sub_if_data *sdata) > struct ieee80211_if_ocb *ifocb = &sdata->u.ocb; > struct sta_info *sta; > > + if (!netif_running(sdata->dev)) > + return; > + > sdata_lock(sdata); > > spin_lock_bh(&ifocb->incomplete_lock); > @@ -229,6 +232,13 @@ int ieee80211_ocb_leave(struct ieee80211_sub_if_data *sdata) > skb_queue_purge(&sdata->skb_queue); > > del_timer_sync(&sdata->u.ocb.housekeeping_timer); > + /* > + * If the timer fired while we waited for it, it will have > + * requeued the work. Now the work will be running again > + * but will not rearm the timer again because it checks > + * whether the interface is running, which, at this point, > + * it no longer is. > + */ > > return 0; > } Now I realized it is not that easy (and I confused "interface running" and being "connected to the network"). There seems not to be a solid indication that we are no longer "connected" to the network. I think a field enum { IEEE80211_OCB_STOPPED, IEEE80211_OCB_JOINED, } state; in struct ieee80211_if_ocb seems to be appropriate. Best regards; Rostislav -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/