Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2012 09:22:37 -0700 From: Adrian Chadd <adrian@freebsd.org> To: PseudoCylon <moonlightakkiy@yahoo.ca> Cc: freebsd-wireless@freebsd.org, Kim Culhan <w8hdkim@gmail.com> Subject: Re: ath0_node_lock ath0_com_lock lor Message-ID: <CAJ-Vmon7U%2BuH1FpBz6xswMa_5j5dngmobH2MekV4ey=MS9MfvA@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <CAFZ_MYKEJnkMW=ZohxGMq2TmqYohJTY%2BO5goHzVJu0P1CZpucQ@mail.gmail.com> References: <CAFZ_MYKEJnkMW=ZohxGMq2TmqYohJTY%2BO5goHzVJu0P1CZpucQ@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 28 September 2012 07:03, PseudoCylon <moonlightakkiy@yahoo.ca> wrote: >> Hm, that's odd. Who wants to go digging to figure out which code paths >> are causing this? :) > A suggestion > > in setmlme_dropsta() > http://fxr.watson.org/fxr/source/net80211/ieee80211_ioctl.c#L1331 > > Just forget about node lock and call ieee80211_find_node() instead of > ieee80211_find_node_locked(). (I believe this lor occurs only in AP > mode.) Right, it's in the wiki, but I don't know what the two code paths are that have inverted locks. So would someone please map out the two code paths and where the locks are grabbed, so I/we can think about how this should be better fixed? Thanks, Adrian
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CAJ-Vmon7U%2BuH1FpBz6xswMa_5j5dngmobH2MekV4ey=MS9MfvA>