> -----Original Message-----
> From: Hans de Goede <[email protected]>
> Sent: Monday, January 18, 2021 23:09
> To: Peer, Ilan <[email protected]>; Johannes Berg
> <[email protected]>; David S . Miller <[email protected]>;
> Jakub Kicinski <[email protected]>; Rojewski, Cezary
> <[email protected]>; Pierre-Louis Bossart <pierre-
> [email protected]>; Liam Girdwood
> <[email protected]>; Jie Yang <[email protected]>;
> Mark Brown <[email protected]>
> Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; linux-
> [email protected]; [email protected]
> Subject: Re: [PATCH] cfg80211: Fix "suspicious RCU usage in
> wiphy_apply_custom_regulatory" warning/backtrace
>
> Hi,
>
> On 1/5/21 10:24 AM, Peer, Ilan wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Hans de Goede <[email protected]>
> >> Sent: Monday, January 04, 2021 19:07
> >> To: Johannes Berg <[email protected]>; David S . Miller
> >> <[email protected]>; Jakub Kicinski <[email protected]>; Rojewski,
> >> Cezary <[email protected]>; Pierre-Louis Bossart <pierre-
> >> [email protected]>; Liam Girdwood
> >> <[email protected]>; Jie Yang
> >> <[email protected]>; Mark Brown <[email protected]>
> >> Cc: Hans de Goede <[email protected]>; linux-
> >> [email protected]; [email protected]; linux-
> >> [email protected]; [email protected]; Peer, Ilan
> >> <[email protected]>
> >> Subject: [PATCH] cfg80211: Fix "suspicious RCU usage in
> >> wiphy_apply_custom_regulatory" warning/backtrace
> >>
> >> Commit beee24695157 ("cfg80211: Save the regulatory domain when
> >> setting custom regulatory") adds a get_wiphy_regdom call to
> >> wiphy_apply_custom_regulatory. But as the comment above
> >> wiphy_apply_custom_regulatory says:
> >> "/* Used by drivers prior to wiphy registration */"
> >> this function is used by driver's probe function before the wiphy is
> >> registered and at this point wiphy->regd will typically by NULL and
> >> calling rcu_dereference_rtnl on a NULL pointer causes the following
> >> warning/backtrace:
> >>
> >> =============================
> >> WARNING: suspicious RCU usage
> >> 5.11.0-rc1+ #19 Tainted: G W
> >> -----------------------------
> >> net/wireless/reg.c:144 suspicious rcu_dereference_check() usage!
> >>
> >> other info that might help us debug this:
> >>
> >> rcu_scheduler_active = 2, debug_locks = 1
> >> 2 locks held by kworker/2:0/22:
> >> #0: ffff9a4bc104df38 ((wq_completion)events){+.+.}-{0:0}, at:
> >> process_one_work+0x1ee/0x570
> >> #1: ffffb6e94010be78
> >> ((work_completion)(&fw_work->work)){+.+.}-{0:0},
> >> at: process_one_work+0x1ee/0x570
> >>
> >> stack backtrace:
> >> CPU: 2 PID: 22 Comm: kworker/2:0 Tainted: G W 5.11.0-rc1+ #19
> >> Hardware name: LENOVO 60073/INVALID, BIOS 01WT17WW 08/01/2014
> >> Workqueue: events request_firmware_work_func Call Trace:
> >> dump_stack+0x8b/0xb0
> >> get_wiphy_regdom+0x57/0x60 [cfg80211]
> >> wiphy_apply_custom_regulatory+0xa0/0xf0 [cfg80211]
> >> brcmf_cfg80211_attach+0xb02/0x1360 [brcmfmac]
> >> brcmf_attach+0x189/0x460 [brcmfmac]
> >> brcmf_sdio_firmware_callback+0x78a/0x8f0 [brcmfmac]
> >> brcmf_fw_request_done+0x67/0xf0 [brcmfmac]
> >> request_firmware_work_func+0x3d/0x70
> >> process_one_work+0x26e/0x570
> >> worker_thread+0x55/0x3c0
> >> ? process_one_work+0x570/0x570
> >> kthread+0x137/0x150
> >> ? __kthread_bind_mask+0x60/0x60
> >> ret_from_fork+0x22/0x30
> >>
> >> Add a check for wiphy->regd being NULL before calling
> >> get_wiphy_regdom (as is already done in other places) to fix this.
> >>
> >> wiphy->regd will likely always be NULL when
> >> wiphy->wiphy_apply_custom_regulatory
> >> gets called, so arguably the tmp = get_wiphy_regdom() and
> >> rcu_free_regdom(tmp) calls should simply be dropped, this patch keeps
> >> the
> >> 2 calls, to allow drivers to call wiphy_apply_custom_regulatory more
> >> then once if necessary.
> >>
> >> Cc: Ilan Peer <[email protected]>
> >> Fixes: beee24695157 ("cfg80211: Save the regulatory domain when
> >> setting custom regulator")
> >> Signed-off-by: Hans de Goede <[email protected]>
> >> ---
> >> net/wireless/reg.c | 5 +++--
> >> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/net/wireless/reg.c b/net/wireless/reg.c index
> >> bb72447ad960..9254b9cbaa21 100644
> >> --- a/net/wireless/reg.c
> >> +++ b/net/wireless/reg.c
> >> @@ -2547,7 +2547,7 @@ static void handle_band_custom(struct wiphy
> >> *wiphy, void wiphy_apply_custom_regulatory(struct wiphy *wiphy,
> >> const struct ieee80211_regdomain *regd) {
> >> - const struct ieee80211_regdomain *new_regd, *tmp;
> >> + const struct ieee80211_regdomain *new_regd, *tmp = NULL;
> >> enum nl80211_band band;
> >> unsigned int bands_set = 0;
> >>
> >> @@ -2571,7 +2571,8 @@ void wiphy_apply_custom_regulatory(struct
> wiphy
> >> *wiphy,
> >> if (IS_ERR(new_regd))
> >> return;
> >>
> >> - tmp = get_wiphy_regdom(wiphy);
> >> + if (wiphy->regd)
> >> + tmp = get_wiphy_regdom(wiphy);
> >> rcu_assign_pointer(wiphy->regd, new_regd);
> >> rcu_free_regdom(tmp);
> >
> > This only fixes the first case where the pointer in NULL and does not handle
> the wrong RCU usage in other cases.
> >
> > I'll prepare a fix for this.
>
> Any luck with this? This is a regression in 5.11, so this really should be fixed in
> a future 5.11-rc and the clock is running out.
>
Yes. The fix is ready. We'll send it.
Regards,
Ilan.