Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
From:   Ganapathi Bhat <gbhat@marvell.com>
To:     Brian Norris <briannorris@chromium.org>
CC:     "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        "Amitkumar Karwar" <amitkarwar@gmail.com>,
        Nishant Sarmukadam <nishants@marvell.com>,
        Xinming Hu <huxinming820@gmail.com>,
        "linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org" <linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org>,
        "stable@vger.kernel.org" <stable@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: RE: [EXT] Re: [4.20 PATCH] Revert "mwifiex: restructure
 rx_reorder_tbl_lock usage"
Thread-Topic: [EXT] Re: [4.20 PATCH] Revert "mwifiex: restructure
 rx_reorder_tbl_lock usage"
Thread-Index: AQHU1VdpBggtVOS6I0GyhcvAXdDin6aLWDtA
Date:   Tue, 4 Jun 2019 03:03:59 +0000
Message-ID: <MN2PR18MB26376D3A660956396D0E60AFA0150@MN2PR18MB2637.namprd18.prod.outlook.com>
References: <20181130175957.167031-1-briannorris@chromium.org>
 <20190308023401.GA121759@google.com>
In-Reply-To: <20190308023401.GA121759@google.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
received-spf: None (protection.outlook.com: marvell.com does not designate
 permitted sender hosts)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: 3f628d0d-b000-48d8-cb20-08d6e8994a77
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 04 Jun 2019 03:03:59.6029
 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: 70e1fb47-1155-421d-87fc-2e58f638b6e0
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-mailboxtype: HOSTED
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-userprincipalname: gbhat@marvell.com
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: MN2PR18MB2752
X-OriginatorOrg: marvell.com
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:,, definitions=2019-06-04_03:,,
 signatures=0
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

Hi Brian,

> >    netif_rx_ni+0xe8/0x120
> >    mwifiex_recv_packet+0xfc/0x10c [mwifiex]
> >    mwifiex_process_rx_packet+0x1d4/0x238 [mwifiex]
> >    mwifiex_11n_dispatch_pkt+0x190/0x1ac [mwifiex]
> >    mwifiex_11n_rx_reorder_pkt+0x28c/0x354 [mwifiex]
>=20
> TL;DR: the problem was right here ^^^
> where you started running mwifiex_11n_dispatch_pkt() (via
> mwifiex_11n_scan_and_dispatch()) while holding a spinlock.
>=20
> When you do that, you eventually call netif_rx_ni(), which specifically d=
efers
> to softirq contexts. Then, if you happen to have your flush timer expirin=
g just
> before that, you end up in mwifiex_flush_data(), which also needs that
> spinlock.

Understood; Thanks for this detail;

>=20
> There are a few possible ways to handle this:
> (a) prevent processing softirqs in that context; e.g., with
>     local_bh_disable(). This seems somewhat of a hack.
>     (Side note: I think most of the locks in this driver really could be
>     spin_lock_bh(), not spin_lock_irqsave() -- we don't really care
>     about hardirq context for 99% of these locks.)
> (b) restructure so that packet processing (e.g., netif_rx_ni()) is done
>     outside of the spinlock.
>=20
> It's actually not that hard to do (b). You can just queue your skb's up i=
n a
> temporary sk_buff_head list and process them all at once after you've
> finished processing the reorder table. I have a local patch to do this, a=
nd I
> might send it your way if I can give it a bit more testing.


OK; That will be good; We will run a complete test after the patch; (OR we =
can work on this, share for review);

Regards,
Ganapathi