Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.kernel > #1723174 > unrolled thread

Re: [GIT] Networking

Back to article view | Back to linux.kernel

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Re: [GIT] Networking Pavel Machek <pavel@ucw.cz> - 2017-08-30 12:00 +0200
    Re: [GIT] Networking Kalle Valo <kvalo@codeaurora.org> - 2017-08-30 16:50 +0200
      Re: [GIT] Networking David Miller <davem@davemloft.net> - 2017-08-30 19:20 +0200
        Re: [GIT] Networking Kalle Valo <kvalo@codeaurora.org> - 2017-08-30 19:40 +0200
          Re: [GIT] Networking David Miller <davem@davemloft.net> - 2017-08-30 20:00 +0200
            Re: [GIT] Networking Kalle Valo <kvalo@codeaurora.org> - 2017-08-31 06:50 +0200
              Re: [GIT] Networking Pavel Machek <pavel@ucw.cz> - 2017-08-31 09:00 +0200
                Re: [GIT] Networking Kalle Valo <kvalo@codeaurora.org> - 2017-08-31 14:00 +0200
                  [PATCH] wl1251: add a missing spin_lock_init() Pavel Machek <pavel@ucw.cz> - 2017-08-31 16:50 +0200
                    Re: [PATCH] wl1251: add a missing spin_lock_init() David Miller <davem@davemloft.net> - 2017-08-31 19:40 +0200
                      Re: [PATCH] wl1251: add a missing spin_lock_init() Pavel Machek <pavel@ucw.cz> - 2017-08-31 21:00 +0200
                        Re: [PATCH] wl1251: add a missing spin_lock_init() David Miller <davem@davemloft.net> - 2017-08-31 21:30 +0200
                          Re: [PATCH] wl1251: add a missing spin_lock_init() Pavel Machek <pavel@ucw.cz> - 2017-08-31 22:00 +0200
                            Re: [PATCH] wl1251: add a missing spin_lock_init() David Miller <davem@davemloft.net> - 2017-08-31 22:20 +0200

#1723174 — Re: [GIT] Networking

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

Hi!

Could we get this one in?

wl1251 misses a spin_lock_init().

https://www.mail-archive.com/netdev@vger.kernel.org/msg177031.html

It seems pretty trivial, yet getting the backtraces is not nice.

Thanks,
   	 		     	     	 	       	   Pavel

-- 
(english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek
(cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#1723401

Pavel Machek <pavel@ucw.cz> writes:

> Could we get this one in?
>
> wl1251 misses a spin_lock_init().
>
> https://www.mail-archive.com/netdev@vger.kernel.org/msg177031.html
>
> It seems pretty trivial, yet getting the backtraces is not nice.

It's in wireless-drivers-next and will be in 4.14-rc1:

https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/kvalo/wireless-drivers-next.git/commit/?id=6e9aae179f290f1a44fce7ef8e9a8e2dd68ed1e4

-- 
Kalle Valo

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1723521

From: Kalle Valo <kvalo@codeaurora.org>
Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2017 17:45:31 +0300

> Pavel Machek <pavel@ucw.cz> writes:
> 
>> Could we get this one in?
>>
>> wl1251 misses a spin_lock_init().
>>
>> https://www.mail-archive.com/netdev@vger.kernel.org/msg177031.html
>>
>> It seems pretty trivial, yet getting the backtraces is not nice.
> 
> It's in wireless-drivers-next and will be in 4.14-rc1:
> 
> https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/kvalo/wireless-drivers-next.git/commit/?id=6e9aae179f290f1a44fce7ef8e9a8e2dd68ed1e4

Is the bug only present in net-next?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1723531

David Miller <davem@davemloft.net> writes:

> From: Kalle Valo <kvalo@codeaurora.org>
> Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2017 17:45:31 +0300
>
>> Pavel Machek <pavel@ucw.cz> writes:
>> 
>>> Could we get this one in?
>>>
>>> wl1251 misses a spin_lock_init().
>>>
>>> https://www.mail-archive.com/netdev@vger.kernel.org/msg177031.html
>>>
>>> It seems pretty trivial, yet getting the backtraces is not nice.
>> 
>> It's in wireless-drivers-next and will be in 4.14-rc1:
>> 
>> https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/kvalo/wireless-drivers-next.git/commit/?id=6e9aae179f290f1a44fce7ef8e9a8e2dd68ed1e4
>
> Is the bug only present in net-next?

AFAICS the bug was introduced by 9df86e2e702c6 back in 2010. If the bug
has been there for 7 years so waiting for a few more weeks should not
hurt.

And Pavel can also submit it to the stable release, it should apply
without problems as wl1251 doesn't have had that many patches during the
last few years (if ever).

-- 
Kalle Valo

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1723544

From: Kalle Valo <kvalo@codeaurora.org>
Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2017 20:31:31 +0300

> AFAICS the bug was introduced by 9df86e2e702c6 back in 2010. If the bug
> has been there for 7 years so waiting for a few more weeks should not
> hurt.

As a maintainer you have a right to handle bug fixing in that way, but
certainly that is not how I would handle this.

It's easy to validate this fix, it's extremely unlikely to cause
a regression, and fixes a problem someone actually was able to
trigger.

Deferring to -next only has the side effect of making people wait
longer for the fix.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1723817

David Miller <davem@davemloft.net> writes:

> From: Kalle Valo <kvalo@codeaurora.org>
> Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2017 20:31:31 +0300
>
>> AFAICS the bug was introduced by 9df86e2e702c6 back in 2010. If the bug
>> has been there for 7 years so waiting for a few more weeks should not
>> hurt.
>
> As a maintainer you have a right to handle bug fixing in that way, but
> certainly that is not how I would handle this.
>
> It's easy to validate this fix, it's extremely unlikely to cause
> a regression, and fixes a problem someone actually was able to
> trigger.
>
> Deferring to -next only has the side effect of making people wait
> longer for the fix.

Yeah, you are right there. I did actually ponder which I tree should
commit it back in July but due to various reasons decided differently.

-- 
Kalle Valo

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1723878

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On Thu 2017-08-31 07:44:58, Kalle Valo wrote:
> David Miller <davem@davemloft.net> writes:
> 
> > From: Kalle Valo <kvalo@codeaurora.org>
> > Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2017 20:31:31 +0300
> >
> >> AFAICS the bug was introduced by 9df86e2e702c6 back in 2010. If the bug
> >> has been there for 7 years so waiting for a few more weeks should not
> >> hurt.
> >
> > As a maintainer you have a right to handle bug fixing in that way, but
> > certainly that is not how I would handle this.
> >
> > It's easy to validate this fix, it's extremely unlikely to cause
> > a regression, and fixes a problem someone actually was able to
> > trigger.
> >
> > Deferring to -next only has the side effect of making people wait
> > longer for the fix.
> 
> Yeah, you are right there. I did actually ponder which I tree should
> commit it back in July but due to various reasons decided differently.

Can we still get the fix to v4.13-final? :-).

Thanks,
									Pavel
-- 
(english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek
(cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1724144

(Adding linux-wireless)

Pavel Machek <pavel@ucw.cz> writes:

> On Thu 2017-08-31 07:44:58, Kalle Valo wrote:
>> David Miller <davem@davemloft.net> writes:
>> 
>> > From: Kalle Valo <kvalo@codeaurora.org>
>> > Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2017 20:31:31 +0300
>> >
>> >> AFAICS the bug was introduced by 9df86e2e702c6 back in 2010. If the bug
>> >> has been there for 7 years so waiting for a few more weeks should not
>> >> hurt.
>> >
>> > As a maintainer you have a right to handle bug fixing in that way, but
>> > certainly that is not how I would handle this.
>> >
>> > It's easy to validate this fix, it's extremely unlikely to cause
>> > a regression, and fixes a problem someone actually was able to
>> > trigger.
>> >
>> > Deferring to -next only has the side effect of making people wait
>> > longer for the fix.
>> 
>> Yeah, you are right there. I did actually ponder which I tree should
>> commit it back in July but due to various reasons decided differently.
>
> Can we still get the fix to v4.13-final? :-).

I'm not planning to submit pull requests to 4.13 anymore. If you think
this is so important that it needs to be applied in the last minute (I
don't) you could always try to convince Dave to take it directly.

Or better yet, push it to the stable tree. If the merge window opens on
Sunday I suspect that the commit will be in Linus' tree sometime next
week. Then you can submit the request to the stable team to take it.

-- 
Kalle Valo

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1724292 — [PATCH] wl1251: add a missing spin_lock_init()

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

From: Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@gmail.com>

wl1251: add a missing spin_lock_init()
    
This fixes the following kernel warning:
    
 [ 5668.771453] BUG: spinlock bad magic on CPU#0, kworker/u2:3/9745
 [ 5668.771850]  lock: 0xce63ef20, .magic: 00000000, .owner: <none>/-1,
 .owner_cpu: 0
 [ 5668.772277] CPU: 0 PID: 9745 Comm: kworker/u2:3 Tainted: G        W
 4.12.0-03002-gec979a4-dirty #40
 [ 5668.772796] Hardware name: Nokia RX-51 board
 [ 5668.773071] Workqueue: phy1 wl1251_irq_work
 [ 5668.773345] [<c010c9e4>] (unwind_backtrace) from [<c010a274>]
 (show_stack+0x10/0x14)
 [ 5668.773803] [<c010a274>] (show_stack) from [<c01545a4>]
 (do_raw_spin_lock+0x6c/0xa0)
 [ 5668.774230] [<c01545a4>] (do_raw_spin_lock) from [<c06ca578>]
 (_raw_spin_lock_irqsave+0x10/0x18)
 [ 5668.774658] [<c06ca578>] (_raw_spin_lock_irqsave) from [<c048c010>]
 (wl1251_op_tx+0x38/0x5c)
 [ 5668.775115] [<c048c010>] (wl1251_op_tx) from [<c06a12e8>]
 (ieee80211_tx_frags+0x188/0x1c0)
 [ 5668.775543] [<c06a12e8>] (ieee80211_tx_frags) from [<c06a138c>]
 (__ieee80211_tx+0x6c/0x130)
 [ 5668.775970] [<c06a138c>] (__ieee80211_tx) from [<c06a3dbc>]
 (ieee80211_tx+0xdc/0x104)
 [ 5668.776367] [<c06a3dbc>] (ieee80211_tx) from [<c06a4af0>]
 (__ieee80211_subif_start_xmit+0x454/0x8c8)
 [ 5668.776824] [<c06a4af0>] (__ieee80211_subif_start_xmit) from
 [<c06a4f94>] (ieee80211_subif_start_xmit+0x30/0x2fc)
 [ 5668.777343] [<c06a4f94>] (ieee80211_subif_start_xmit) from
 [<c0578848>] (dev_hard_start_xmit+0x80/0x118)
...
    
    by adding the missing spin_lock_init().
    
Reported-by: Pavel Machek <pavel@ucw.cz>
Cc: Kalle Valo <kvalo@codeaurora.org>
Signed-off-by: Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@gmail.com>
Acked-by: Pavel Machek <pavel@ucw.cz>
Signed-off-by: Kalle Valo <kvalo@codeaurora.org>
Signed-off-by: Pavel Machek <pavel@ucw.cz>
Cc: stable@kernel.org

---

> >> Yeah, you are right there. I did actually ponder which I tree should
> >> commit it back in July but due to various reasons decided differently.
> >
> > Can we still get the fix to v4.13-final? :-).
> 
> I'm not planning to submit pull requests to 4.13 anymore. If you think
> this is so important that it needs to be applied in the last minute (I
> don't) you could always try to convince Dave to take it directly.
> 
> Or better yet, push it to the stable tree. If the merge window opens on
> Sunday I suspect that the commit will be in Linus' tree sometime next
> week. Then you can submit the request to the stable team to take it.

I don't think we should use stable tree as an excuse for not fixing
the bugs in mainline. Original patch is from Jul 6, thats 7 weeks ago.

Dave, Linus -- can you still take the patch?

Thanks,
								Pavel


diff --git a/drivers/net/wireless/ti/wl1251/main.c b/drivers/net/wireless/ti/wl1251/main.c
index 08f0477..9915d83 100644
--- a/drivers/net/wireless/ti/wl1251/main.c
+++ b/drivers/net/wireless/ti/wl1251/main.c
@@ -1571,6 +1571,7 @@ struct ieee80211_hw *wl1251_alloc_hw(void)
 
 	wl->state = WL1251_STATE_OFF;
 	mutex_init(&wl->mutex);
+	spin_lock_init(&wl->wl_lock);
 
 	wl->tx_mgmt_frm_rate = DEFAULT_HW_GEN_TX_RATE;
 	wl->tx_mgmt_frm_mod = DEFAULT_HW_GEN_MODULATION_TYPE;



-- 
(english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek
(cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1724453 — Re: [PATCH] wl1251: add a missing spin_lock_init()

From: Pavel Machek <pavel@ucw.cz>
Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2017 16:47:43 +0200

> Dave, Linus -- can you still take the patch?

Pavel, please do not bypass maintainers like this.

It's really rude, and if you do things like that instead of
trying to work properly with us, your relationship with
these maintainers will suffer in the long term.

Thank you.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1724493 — Re: [PATCH] wl1251: add a missing spin_lock_init()

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

Hi!

> From: Pavel Machek <pavel@ucw.cz>
> Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2017 16:47:43 +0200
> 
> > Dave, Linus -- can you still take the patch?
> 
> Pavel, please do not bypass maintainers like this.
> 
> It's really rude, and if you do things like that instead of
> trying to work properly with us, your relationship with
> these maintainers will suffer in the long term.

Do you mean I'm being rude to Kalle, or rude to you?

In the part you snipped, Kalle asked me to do just that:

# I'm not planning to submit pull requests to 4.13 anymore. If you think
# this is so important that it needs to be applied in the last minute (I
# don't) you could always try to convince Dave to take it directly.

..and as I still believe patch should go in, that's what I did.

Best regards,
									Pavel
-- 
(english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek
(cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1724517 — Re: [PATCH] wl1251: add a missing spin_lock_init()

From: Pavel Machek <pavel@ucw.cz>
Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2017 20:57:19 +0200

> Hi!
> 
>> From: Pavel Machek <pavel@ucw.cz>
>> Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2017 16:47:43 +0200
>> 
>> > Dave, Linus -- can you still take the patch?
>> 
>> Pavel, please do not bypass maintainers like this.
>> 
>> It's really rude, and if you do things like that instead of
>> trying to work properly with us, your relationship with
>> these maintainers will suffer in the long term.
> 
> Do you mean I'm being rude to Kalle, or rude to you?

He said "to David", not "David and Linus".

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1724540 — Re: [PATCH] wl1251: add a missing spin_lock_init()

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

Hi!

On Thu 2017-08-31 12:26:45, David Miller wrote:
> From: Pavel Machek <pavel@ucw.cz>
> Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2017 20:57:19 +0200
> 
> > Hi!
> > 
> >> From: Pavel Machek <pavel@ucw.cz>
> >> Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2017 16:47:43 +0200
> >> 
> >> > Dave, Linus -- can you still take the patch?
> >> 
> >> Pavel, please do not bypass maintainers like this.
> >> 
> >> It's really rude, and if you do things like that instead of
> >> trying to work properly with us, your relationship with
> >> these maintainers will suffer in the long term.
> > 
> > Do you mean I'm being rude to Kalle, or rude to you?
> 
> He said "to David", not "David and Linus".

Ok. If I knew you would be replying so quickly, I'd acted
differently. I did not want to be rude.

But I'd still like to get the patch in. Do you plan to send another
pull request to Linus, and can you take the patch, please?

Thanks,
								Pavel
-- 
(english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek
(cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1724558 — Re: [PATCH] wl1251: add a missing spin_lock_init()

From: Pavel Machek <pavel@ucw.cz>
Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2017 21:59:33 +0200

> Do you plan to send another pull request to Linus, and can you take
> the patch, please?

Yes and yes.

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | linux.kernel

csiph-web