Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Message-ID: <356c24cf-625b-eea2-2c04-ce132d881cac@gmail.com>
Date:   Sat, 2 Apr 2022 22:47:27 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/91.7.0
Content-Language: en-US
To:     Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
Cc:     Larry Finger <Larry.Finger@lwfinger.net>,
        Phillip Potter <phil@philpotter.co.uk>,
        "open list:STAGING SUBSYSTEM" <linux-staging@lists.linux.dev>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        straube.linux@gmail.com
From:   Michael Straube <straube.linux@gmail.com>
Subject: staging: r8188eu: how to handle nested mutex under spinlock
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

Hi all,

smatch reported a sleeping in atomic context.

rtw_set_802_11_disassociate() <- disables preempt
-> _rtw_pwr_wakeup()
    -> ips_leave()

rtw_set_802_11_disassociate() takes a spinlock and ips_leave() uses a
mutex.

I'm fairly new to the locking stuff, but as far as I know this is not a
false positive since mutex can sleep, but that's not allowed under a
spinlock.

What is the best way to handle this?
I'm not sure if converting the mutex to a spinlock (including all the
other places where the mutex is used) is the right thing to do?

thanks,
Michael