On Thu, 6 Sep 2007, Johannes Berg wrote:
> On Thu, 2007-09-06 at 16:23 +0800, Herbert Xu wrote:
> > On Thu, Sep 06, 2007 at 10:32:33AM +0530, Satyam Sharma wrote:
> > >
> > > > > [ 382.529041] [<c02c8abc>] dev_close+0x24/0x67
> > > > > [ 382.529052] [<e01f402b>] ieee80211_master_stop+0x4a/0x6d [mac80211]
> >
> > This is where the bug is. You cannot call dev_close from an
> > atomic context as i33380211_master_stop does it within spin
> > locks.
>
> Hah, I suspected as much but didn't have a chance to look yet. I had
> plans to replace that sub_if_list with an RCU list and not require the
> lock there, but that's far off.
Unless I missed something obvious (let me know if that's the case! :-)
an RCU-protected list would suffer the same fate. list_for_each_xxx_rcu()
must be under rcu_read_lock() which == preempt_disable() ...
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
