diff mbox

[for,3.19] rtlwifi: Fix error when accessing unmapped memory in skb

Message ID 54989E12.6050808@lwfinger.net (mailing list archive)
State Changes Requested
Delegated to: Kalle Valo
Headers show

Commit Message

Larry Finger Dec. 22, 2014, 10:41 p.m. UTC 
On 12/22/2014 01:48 PM, Eric Biggers wrote:
> Is this really the same behavior as 3.17?  In 3.17, allocating the new skb is
> one of the first things the interrupt handler does, and if that fails it drops
> the packet and keeps using the old skb.  In this proposal, it's only after the
> packet has been received and the old skb has been freed that a new one is
> allocated.  And if that fails --- well, what are you expecting to happen
> exactly?

You are correct. In trying to get a small patch for stable, I missed some 
important points.

Please look at the attached patch. I think it handles the skb allocations 
correctly. The critical point is that _rtl_pci_init_one_rxdesc() cannot be 
allowed to fail to allocate an skb while in the interrupt path. Now, I have 
already allocated the skb before the call and bypassed this routine if the 
allocation fails. After a couple of crashes, this one now works for the case 
when the allocation wouldn't fail anyway. I will likely pull the allocation out 
of _rtl_pci_init_one_rxdesc() in all cases for the final patch.

@Kalle: Please drop the patch I submitted this morning with this subject. It 
would not help the problem. I will resubmit after I am sure of the proper fix.

Thanks,

Larry

Comments

Eric Biggers Dec. 22, 2014, 11:33 p.m. UTC | #1 
On Mon, Dec 22, 2014 at 04:41:22PM -0600, Larry Finger wrote:
> Please look at the attached patch. I think it handles the skb allocations
> correctly. The critical point is that _rtl_pci_init_one_rxdesc() cannot be
> allowed to fail to allocate an skb while in the interrupt path. Now, I have
> already allocated the skb before the call and bypassed this routine if the
> allocation fails. After a couple of crashes, this one now works for the case
> when the allocation wouldn't fail anyway. I will likely pull the allocation
> out of _rtl_pci_init_one_rxdesc() in all cases for the final patch.

Well, it's looking better.  But what seems strange to me is that
_rtl_pci_init_one_rxdesc() will map the skb for DMA, even though in the error
path it was never unmapped from the previous use.  The 3.17 version will neither
unmap nor map the skb in the error path.

I also suspect that trying to share _rtl_pci_init_one_rxdesc() between the
driver initialization and the interrupt handler is just confusing matters.
Perhaps only the ->set_desc() calls should be shared?

In any case, I assume it would be a good idea to, for testing, inject some
random skb allocation failures and make sure the driver still works smoothly
except for some dropped packets.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-wireless" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Kalle Valo Dec. 23, 2014, 6:37 a.m. UTC | #2 
Larry Finger <Larry.Finger@lwfinger.net> writes:

> You are correct. In trying to get a small patch for stable, I missed
> some important points.
>
> Please look at the attached patch. I think it handles the skb
> allocations correctly. The critical point is that
> _rtl_pci_init_one_rxdesc() cannot be allowed to fail to allocate an
> skb while in the interrupt path. Now, I have already allocated the skb
> before the call and bypassed this routine if the allocation fails.
> After a couple of crashes, this one now works for the case when the
> allocation wouldn't fail anyway. I will likely pull the allocation out
> of _rtl_pci_init_one_rxdesc() in all cases for the final patch.
>
> @Kalle: Please drop the patch I submitted this morning with this
> subject. It would not help the problem. I will resubmit after I am
> sure of the proper fix.

Ack. I'll wait for v2.
diff mbox

Patch

Index: wireless-drivers/drivers/net/wireless/rtlwifi/pci.c
===================================================================
--- wireless-drivers.orig/drivers/net/wireless/rtlwifi/pci.c
+++ wireless-drivers/drivers/net/wireless/rtlwifi/pci.c
@@ -666,6 +666,7 @@  tx_status_ok:
 }
 
 static int _rtl_pci_init_one_rxdesc(struct ieee80211_hw *hw,
+				    struct sk_buff *new_skb,
 				    u8 *entry, int rxring_idx, int desc_idx)
 {
 	struct rtl_priv *rtlpriv = rtl_priv(hw);
@@ -674,7 +675,10 @@  static int _rtl_pci_init_one_rxdesc(stru
 	u8 tmp_one = 1;
 	struct sk_buff *skb;
 
-	skb = dev_alloc_skb(rtlpci->rxbuffersize);
+	if (new_skb)
+		skb = new_skb;
+	else
+		skb = dev_alloc_skb(rtlpci->rxbuffersize);
 	if (!skb)
 		return 0;
 	rtlpci->rx_ring[rxring_idx].rx_buf[desc_idx] = skb;
@@ -772,6 +776,7 @@  static void _rtl_pci_rx_interrupt(struct
 	/*RX NORMAL PKT */
 	while (count--) {
 		struct ieee80211_hdr *hdr;
+		struct sk_buff *new_skb = NULL;
 		__le16 fc;
 		u16 len;
 		/*rx buffer descriptor */
@@ -800,6 +805,12 @@  static void _rtl_pci_rx_interrupt(struct
 				return;
 		}
 
+		new_skb = dev_alloc_skb(rtlpci->rxbuffersize);
+		if (unlikely(!new_skb)) {
+			RT_TRACE(rtlpriv, (COMP_INTR | COMP_RECV), DBG_DMESG,
+				 "can't alloc skb for rx\n");
+			goto end;
+		}
 		/* Reaching this point means: data is filled already
 		 * AAAAAAttention !!!
 		 * We can NOT access 'skb' before 'pci_unmap_single'
@@ -845,6 +856,7 @@  static void _rtl_pci_rx_interrupt(struct
 		if (rtlpriv->cfg->ops->rx_command_packet &&
 		    rtlpriv->cfg->ops->rx_command_packet(hw, stats, skb)) {
 				dev_kfree_skb_any(skb);
+				skb = new_skb;
 				goto end;
 		}
 
@@ -895,6 +907,7 @@  static void _rtl_pci_rx_interrupt(struct
 		} else {
 			dev_kfree_skb_any(skb);
 		}
+		skb = new_skb;
 		if (rtlpriv->use_new_trx_flow) {
 			rtlpci->rx_ring[hw_queue].next_rx_rp += 1;
 			rtlpci->rx_ring[hw_queue].next_rx_rp %=
@@ -912,12 +925,13 @@  static void _rtl_pci_rx_interrupt(struct
 		}
 end:
 		if (rtlpriv->use_new_trx_flow) {
-			if (!_rtl_pci_init_one_rxdesc(hw, (u8 *)buffer_desc,
-					     rxring_idx,
-					     rtlpci->rx_ring[rxring_idx].idx))
+			/* TODO: Can the following fail? */
+			if (!_rtl_pci_init_one_rxdesc(hw, skb,
+					 (u8 *)buffer_desc, rxring_idx,
+					 rtlpci->rx_ring[rxring_idx].idx))
 				return;
 		} else {
-			if (!_rtl_pci_init_one_rxdesc(hw, (u8 *)pdesc,
+			if (!_rtl_pci_init_one_rxdesc(hw, skb, (u8 *)pdesc,
 					     rxring_idx,
 					     rtlpci->rx_ring[rxring_idx].idx))
 				return;
@@ -1309,7 +1323,7 @@  static int _rtl_pci_init_rx_ring(struct
 		rtlpci->rx_ring[rxring_idx].idx = 0;
 		for (i = 0; i < rtlpci->rxringcount; i++) {
 			entry = &rtlpci->rx_ring[rxring_idx].buffer_desc[i];
-			if (!_rtl_pci_init_one_rxdesc(hw, (u8 *)entry,
+			if (!_rtl_pci_init_one_rxdesc(hw, NULL, (u8 *)entry,
 						      rxring_idx, i))
 				return -ENOMEM;
 		}
@@ -1334,7 +1348,7 @@  static int _rtl_pci_init_rx_ring(struct
 
 		for (i = 0; i < rtlpci->rxringcount; i++) {
 			entry = &rtlpci->rx_ring[rxring_idx].desc[i];
-			if (!_rtl_pci_init_one_rxdesc(hw, (u8 *)entry,
+			if (!_rtl_pci_init_one_rxdesc(hw, NULL, (u8 *)entry,
 						      rxring_idx, i))
 				return -ENOMEM;
 		}