[PATCH] cfg80211: hold reg_mutex when updating regulatory

[Sven Neumann]

On Mon, 2011-07-25 at 13:21 -0700, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 22, 2011 at 1:37 PM, Sven Neumann <s.neumann at raumfeld.com> wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > On Fri, 2011-07-15 at 13:32 -0400, John W. Linville wrote:
> >> Luis, any comment on this?
> >>
> >> On Tue, Jul 12, 2011 at 09:52:39AM +0200, Sven Neumann wrote:
> >> > The function wiphy_update_regulatory() uses the static variable
> >> > last_request and thus needs to be called with reg_mutex held.
> >> > This is the case for all users in reg.c, but the function was
> >> > exported for use by wiphy_register(), from where it is called
> >> > without the lock being held.
> >> >
> >> > Fix this by making wiphy_update_regulatory() private and introducing
> >> > regulatory_update() as a wrapper that acquires and holds the lock.
> >> >
> >> > Signed-off-by: Sven Neumann <s.neumann at raumfeld.com>
> >
> > I'd appreciate if someone would review this patch. But probably this is
> > not really an issue except that it's somewhat ugly to export a function
> > that should be called with a lock held and that lock is actually
> > private. But in this particular case it is not a problem, as far as I
> > can see, since the only user of wiphy_update_regulatory() outside
> > net/wireless/reg.c is initialization code. So there is not likely going
> > to be a race condition here.
> 
> Apologies for the delay and thanks for the patch. The patch seems good
> except for the fact that there are so many changes reflected on the
> patch itself and this can be avoided by splitting the work into a few
> more patches so that the actual code changes required are reflected
> cleanly in one patch. Can you perhaps split up your changes so that
> moves of code are just that and actual code changes are reflected
> elsewhere?

Sure, I can do that. But I won't get to it before next week as I am
currently on vacation.


Thanks for the review,
Sven