2010-01-24 12:55:18

by Kalle Valo

[permalink] [raw]
Subject: [PATCH] mac80211: fix update_tkip_key() documentation about the context

Johannes noticed that I had incorrectly documented the context of
update_tkip_key() driver operation. It must be atomic because all
RX code is run inside rcu critical section.

Reported-by: Johannes Berg <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Kalle Valo <[email protected]>
---
include/net/mac80211.h | 2 +-
net/mac80211/driver-ops.h | 2 --
2 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)

diff --git a/include/net/mac80211.h b/include/net/mac80211.h
index f56d6f4..f64402f 100644
--- a/include/net/mac80211.h
+++ b/include/net/mac80211.h
@@ -1489,7 +1489,7 @@ enum ieee80211_ampdu_mlme_action {
* @update_tkip_key: See the section "Hardware crypto acceleration"
* This callback will be called in the context of Rx. Called for drivers
* which set IEEE80211_KEY_FLAG_TKIP_REQ_RX_P1_KEY.
- * The callback can sleep.
+ * The callback must be atomic.
*
* @hw_scan: Ask the hardware to service the scan request, no need to start
* the scan state machine in stack. The scan must honour the channel
diff --git a/net/mac80211/driver-ops.h b/net/mac80211/driver-ops.h
index 40c6e9a..6c31f38 100644
--- a/net/mac80211/driver-ops.h
+++ b/net/mac80211/driver-ops.h
@@ -144,8 +144,6 @@ static inline void drv_update_tkip_key(struct ieee80211_local *local,
{
struct ieee80211_sta *ista = NULL;

- might_sleep();
-
if (sta)
ista = &sta->sta;




2010-01-24 13:59:58

by Kalle Valo

[permalink] [raw]
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mac80211: fix update_tkip_key() documentation about the context

Kalle Valo <[email protected]> writes:

> Johannes noticed that I had incorrectly documented the context of
> update_tkip_key() driver operation. It must be atomic because all
> RX code is run inside rcu critical section.
>
> Reported-by: Johannes Berg <[email protected]>
> Signed-off-by: Kalle Valo <[email protected]>

John, I forgot to mention that this might fix some false warnings
caused by my patch "mac80211: annotate sleeping driver ops". I haven't
seen any reports, yet. Forturnately the patch is not in 2.6.33 AFAIK.

--
Kalle Valo