Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Date:   Mon, 30 May 2022 11:52:32 +0200
From:   Sascha Hauer <s.hauer@pengutronix.de>
To:     Kalle Valo <kvalo@kernel.org>
Cc:     linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org, Neo Jou <neojou@gmail.com>,
        Hans Ulli Kroll <linux@ulli-kroll.de>,
        Ping-Ke Shih <pkshih@realtek.com>,
        Yan-Hsuan Chuang <tony0620emma@gmail.com>,
        netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Martin Blumenstingl <martin.blumenstingl@googlemail.com>,
        kernel@pengutronix.de, Johannes Berg <johannes@sipsolutions.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/10] RTW88: Add support for USB variants
Message-ID: <20220530095232.GI1615@pengutronix.de>
References: <20220518082318.3898514-1-s.hauer@pengutronix.de>
 <87fskrv0cm.fsf@kernel.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <87fskrv0cm.fsf@kernel.org>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, May 30, 2022 at 12:25:13PM +0300, Kalle Valo wrote:
> Sascha Hauer <s.hauer@pengutronix.de> writes:
> 
> > Another problem to address is that the driver uses
> > ieee80211_iterate_stations_atomic() and
> > ieee80211_iterate_active_interfaces_atomic() and does register accesses
> > in the iterator. This doesn't work with USB, so iteration is done in two
> > steps now: The ieee80211_iterate_*_atomic() functions are only used to
> > collect the stations/interfaces on a list which is then iterated over
> > non-atomically in the second step. The implementation for this is
> > basically the one suggested by Ping-Ke here:
> >
> > https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/423f474e15c948eda4db5bc9a50fd391@realtek.com/
> 
> Isn't this racy? What guarantees that vifs are not deleted after
> ieee80211_iterate_active_interfaces_atomic() call?

The driver mutex &rtwdev->mutex is acquired during the whole
collection/iteration process. For deleting an interface
ieee80211_ops::remove_interface would have to be called, right?
That would acquire &rtwdev->mutex as well, so I think this should be
safe.

Sascha

-- 
Pengutronix e.K.                           |                             |
Steuerwalder Str. 21                       | http://www.pengutronix.de/  |
31137 Hildesheim, Germany                  | Phone: +49-5121-206917-0    |
Amtsgericht Hildesheim, HRA 2686           | Fax:   +49-5121-206917-5555 |