commit 990de49f74e772b6db5208457b7aa712a5f4db86 upstream. When a full scan 2.4 and 5 GHz scan is scheduled, but then the 2.4 GHz part of the scan disables a 5.2 GHz channel due to, e.g. receiving country or frequency information, that 5.2 GHz channel might already be in the list of channels to scan next. Then, when the driver checks if it should do a passive scan, that will return false and attempt an active scan. This is not only wrong but can also lead to the iwlwifi device firmware crashing since it checks regulatory as well. Fix this by not setting the channel flags to just disabled but rather OR'ing in the disabled flag. That way, even if the race happens, the channel will be scanned passively which is still (mostly) correct. Signed-off-by: Johannes Berg <johannes.berg@intel.com> Signed-off-by: Ben Hutchings <ben@decadent.org.uk>
commit 43c771a1963ab461a2f194e3c97fded1d5fe262f upstream. When in world roaming mode, allow 40 MHz to be used on channels 12 and 13 so that an AP that is, e.g., using HT40+ on channel 9 (in the UK) can be used. Reported-by: Eddie Chapman <eddie@ehuk.net> Tested-by: Eddie Chapman <eddie@ehuk.net> Acked-by: Luis R. Rodriguez <mcgrof@qca.qualcomm.com> Signed-off-by: Johannes Berg <johannes.berg@intel.com> Signed-off-by: Ben Hutchings <ben@decadent.org.uk>
commit a85d0d7f3460b1a123b78e7f7e39bf72c37dfb78 upstream.
When call_crda() is called we kick off a witch hunt search
for the same regulatory domain on our internal regulatory
database and that work gets kicked off on a workqueue, this
is done while the cfg80211_mutex is held. If that workqueue
kicks off it will first lock reg_regdb_search_mutex and
later cfg80211_mutex but to ensure two CPUs will not contend
against cfg80211_mutex the right thing to do is to have the
reg_regdb_search() wait until the cfg80211_mutex is let go.
The lockdep report is pasted below.
cfg80211: Calling CRDA to update world regulatory domain
======================================================
[ INFO: possible circular locking dependency detected ]
3.3.8 #3 Tainted: G O
-------------------------------------------------------
kworker/0:1/235 is trying to acquire lock:
(cfg80211_mutex){+.+...}, at: [<816468a4>] set_regdom+0x78c/0x808 [cfg80211]
but task is already holding lock:
(reg_regdb_search_mutex){+.+...}, at: [<81646828>] set_regdom+0x710/0x808 [cfg80211]
which lock already depends on the new lock.
the existing dependency chain (in reverse order) is:
-> #2 (reg_regdb_search_mutex){+.+...}:
[<800a8384>] lock_acquire+0x60/0x88
[<802950a8>] mutex_lock_nested+0x54/0x31c
[<81645778>] is_world_regdom+0x9f8/0xc74 [cfg80211]
-> #1 (reg_mutex#2){+.+...}:
[<800a8384>] lock_acquire+0x60/0x88
[<802950a8>] mutex_lock_nested+0x54/0x31c
[<8164539c>] is_world_regdom+0x61c/0xc74 [cfg80211]
-> #0 (cfg80211_mutex){+.+...}:
[<800a77b8>] __lock_acquire+0x10d4/0x17bc
[<800a8384>] lock_acquire+0x60/0x88
[<802950a8>] mutex_lock_nested+0x54/0x31c
[<816468a4>] set_regdom+0x78c/0x808 [cfg80211]
other info that might help us debug this:
Chain exists of:
cfg80211_mutex --> reg_mutex#2 --> reg_regdb_search_mutex
Possible unsafe locking scenario:
CPU0 CPU1
---- ----
lock(reg_regdb_search_mutex);
lock(reg_mutex#2);
lock(reg_regdb_search_mutex);
lock(cfg80211_mutex);
*** DEADLOCK ***
3 locks held by kworker/0:1/235:
#0: (events){.+.+..}, at: [<80089a00>] process_one_work+0x230/0x460
#1: (reg_regdb_work){+.+...}, at: [<80089a00>] process_one_work+0x230/0x460
#2: (reg_regdb_search_mutex){+.+...}, at: [<81646828>] set_regdom+0x710/0x808 [cfg80211]
stack backtrace:
Call Trace:
[<80290fd4>] dump_stack+0x8/0x34
[<80291bc4>] print_circular_bug+0x2ac/0x2d8
[<800a77b8>] __lock_acquire+0x10d4/0x17bc
[<800a8384>] lock_acquire+0x60/0x88
[<802950a8>] mutex_lock_nested+0x54/0x31c
[<816468a4>] set_regdom+0x78c/0x808 [cfg80211]
Reported-by: Felix Fietkau <nbd@openwrt.org>
Tested-by: Felix Fietkau <nbd@openwrt.org>
Signed-off-by: Luis R. Rodriguez <mcgrof@do-not-panic.com>
Reviewed-by: Johannes Berg <johannes@sipsolutions.net>
Signed-off-by: John W. Linville <linville@tuxdriver.com>
Signed-off-by: Ben Hutchings <ben@decadent.org.uk>
commit fe20b39ec32e975f1054c0b7866c873a954adf05 upstream.
reg_timeout_work() calls restore_regulatory_settings() which
takes cfg80211_mutex.
reg_set_request_processed() already holds cfg80211_mutex
before calling cancel_delayed_work_sync(reg_timeout),
so it might deadlock.
Call the async cancel_delayed_work instead, in order
to avoid the potential deadlock.
This is the relevant lockdep warning:
cfg80211: Calling CRDA for country: XX
======================================================
[ INFO: possible circular locking dependency detected ]
3.4.0-rc5-wl+ #26 Not tainted
-------------------------------------------------------
kworker/0:2/1391 is trying to acquire lock:
(cfg80211_mutex){+.+.+.}, at: [<bf28ae00>] restore_regulatory_settings+0x34/0x418 [cfg80211]
but task is already holding lock:
((reg_timeout).work){+.+...}, at: [<c0059e94>] process_one_work+0x1f0/0x480
which lock already depends on the new lock.
the existing dependency chain (in reverse order) is:
-> #2 ((reg_timeout).work){+.+...}:
[<c008fd44>] validate_chain+0xb94/0x10f0
[<c0090b68>] __lock_acquire+0x8c8/0x9b0
[<c0090d40>] lock_acquire+0xf0/0x114
[<c005b600>] wait_on_work+0x4c/0x154
[<c005c000>] __cancel_work_timer+0xd4/0x11c
[<c005c064>] cancel_delayed_work_sync+0x1c/0x20
[<bf28b274>] reg_set_request_processed+0x50/0x78 [cfg80211]
[<bf28bd84>] set_regdom+0x550/0x600 [cfg80211]
[<bf294cd8>] nl80211_set_reg+0x218/0x258 [cfg80211]
[<c03c7738>] genl_rcv_msg+0x1a8/0x1e8
[<c03c6a00>] netlink_rcv_skb+0x5c/0xc0
[<c03c7584>] genl_rcv+0x28/0x34
[<c03c6720>] netlink_unicast+0x15c/0x228
[<c03c6c7c>] netlink_sendmsg+0x218/0x298
[<c03933c8>] sock_sendmsg+0xa4/0xc0
[<c039406c>] __sys_sendmsg+0x1e4/0x268
[<c0394228>] sys_sendmsg+0x4c/0x70
[<c0013840>] ret_fast_syscall+0x0/0x3c
-> #1 (reg_mutex){+.+.+.}:
[<c008fd44>] validate_chain+0xb94/0x10f0
[<c0090b68>] __lock_acquire+0x8c8/0x9b0
[<c0090d40>] lock_acquire+0xf0/0x114
[<c04734dc>] mutex_lock_nested+0x48/0x320
[<bf28b2cc>] reg_todo+0x30/0x538 [cfg80211]
[<c0059f44>] process_one_work+0x2a0/0x480
[<c005a4b4>] worker_thread+0x1bc/0x2bc
[<c0061148>] kthread+0x98/0xa4
[<c0014af4>] kernel_thread_exit+0x0/0x8
-> #0 (cfg80211_mutex){+.+.+.}:
[<c008ed58>] print_circular_bug+0x68/0x2cc
[<c008fb28>] validate_chain+0x978/0x10f0
[<c0090b68>] __lock_acquire+0x8c8/0x9b0
[<c0090d40>] lock_acquire+0xf0/0x114
[<c04734dc>] mutex_lock_nested+0x48/0x320
[<bf28ae00>] restore_regulatory_settings+0x34/0x418 [cfg80211]
[<bf28b200>] reg_timeout_work+0x1c/0x20 [cfg80211]
[<c0059f44>] process_one_work+0x2a0/0x480
[<c005a4b4>] worker_thread+0x1bc/0x2bc
[<c0061148>] kthread+0x98/0xa4
[<c0014af4>] kernel_thread_exit+0x0/0x8
other info that might help us debug this:
Chain exists of:
cfg80211_mutex --> reg_mutex --> (reg_timeout).work
Possible unsafe locking scenario:
CPU0 CPU1
---- ----
lock((reg_timeout).work);
lock(reg_mutex);
lock((reg_timeout).work);
lock(cfg80211_mutex);
*** DEADLOCK ***
2 locks held by kworker/0:2/1391:
#0: (events){.+.+.+}, at: [<c0059e94>] process_one_work+0x1f0/0x480
#1: ((reg_timeout).work){+.+...}, at: [<c0059e94>] process_one_work+0x1f0/0x480
stack backtrace:
[<c001b928>] (unwind_backtrace+0x0/0x12c) from [<c0471d3c>] (dump_stack+0x20/0x24)
[<c0471d3c>] (dump_stack+0x20/0x24) from [<c008ef70>] (print_circular_bug+0x280/0x2cc)
[<c008ef70>] (print_circular_bug+0x280/0x2cc) from [<c008fb28>] (validate_chain+0x978/0x10f0)
[<c008fb28>] (validate_chain+0x978/0x10f0) from [<c0090b68>] (__lock_acquire+0x8c8/0x9b0)
[<c0090b68>] (__lock_acquire+0x8c8/0x9b0) from [<c0090d40>] (lock_acquire+0xf0/0x114)
[<c0090d40>] (lock_acquire+0xf0/0x114) from [<c04734dc>] (mutex_lock_nested+0x48/0x320)
[<c04734dc>] (mutex_lock_nested+0x48/0x320) from [<bf28ae00>] (restore_regulatory_settings+0x34/0x418 [cfg80211])
[<bf28ae00>] (restore_regulatory_settings+0x34/0x418 [cfg80211]) from [<bf28b200>] (reg_timeout_work+0x1c/0x20 [cfg80211])
[<bf28b200>] (reg_timeout_work+0x1c/0x20 [cfg80211]) from [<c0059f44>] (process_one_work+0x2a0/0x480)
[<c0059f44>] (process_one_work+0x2a0/0x480) from [<c005a4b4>] (worker_thread+0x1bc/0x2bc)
[<c005a4b4>] (worker_thread+0x1bc/0x2bc) from [<c0061148>] (kthread+0x98/0xa4)
[<c0061148>] (kthread+0x98/0xa4) from [<c0014af4>] (kernel_thread_exit+0x0/0x8)
cfg80211: Calling CRDA to update world regulatory domain
cfg80211: World regulatory domain updated:
cfg80211: (start_freq - end_freq @ bandwidth), (max_antenna_gain, max_eirp)
cfg80211: (2402000 KHz - 2472000 KHz @ 40000 KHz), (300 mBi, 2000 mBm)
cfg80211: (2457000 KHz - 2482000 KHz @ 20000 KHz), (300 mBi, 2000 mBm)
cfg80211: (2474000 KHz - 2494000 KHz @ 20000 KHz), (300 mBi, 2000 mBm)
cfg80211: (5170000 KHz - 5250000 KHz @ 40000 KHz), (300 mBi, 2000 mBm)
cfg80211: (5735000 KHz - 5835000 KHz @ 40000 KHz), (300 mBi, 2000 mBm)
Signed-off-by: Eliad Peller <eliad@wizery.com>
Signed-off-by: Johannes Berg <johannes.berg@intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Ben Hutchings <ben@decadent.org.uk>
commit 80007efeff0568375b08faf93c7aad65602cb97e upstream. It has happened twice now where elaborate troubleshooting has undergone on systems where CONFIG_CFG80211_INTERNAL_REGDB [0] has been set but yet net/wireless/db.txt was not updated. Despite the documentation on this it seems system integrators could use some more help with this, so throw out a kernel warning at boot time when their database is empty. This does mean that the error-prone system integrator won't likely realize the issue until they boot the machine but -- it does not seem to make sense to enable a build bug breaking random build testing. [0] http://wireless.kernel.org/en/developers/Regulatory/CRDA#CONFIG_CFG80211_INTERNAL_REGDB Cc: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au> Cc: Youngsin Lee <youngsin@qualcomm.com> Cc: Raja Mani <rmani@qca.qualcomm.com> Cc: Senthil Kumar Balasubramanian <senthilb@qca.qualcomm.com> Cc: Vipin Mehta <vipimeht@qca.qualcomm.com> Cc: yahuan@qca.qualcomm.com Cc: jjan@qca.qualcomm.com Cc: vthiagar@qca.qualcomm.com Cc: henrykim@qualcomm.com Cc: jouni@qca.qualcomm.com Cc: athiruve@qca.qualcomm.com Cc: cjkim@qualcomm.com Cc: philipk@qca.qualcomm.com Cc: sunnykim@qualcomm.com Cc: sskwak@qualcomm.com Cc: kkim@qualcomm.com Cc: mattbyun@qualcomm.com Cc: ryanlee@qualcomm.com Cc: simbap@qualcomm.com Cc: krislee@qualcomm.com Cc: conner@qualcomm.com Cc: hojinkim@qualcomm.com Cc: honglee@qualcomm.com Cc: johnwkim@qualcomm.com Cc: jinyong@qca.qualcomm.com Signed-off-by: Luis R. Rodriguez <mcgrof@frijolero.org> Signed-off-by: John W. Linville <linville@tuxdriver.com> Signed-off-by: Ben Hutchings <ben@decadent.org.uk>
Johannes' patch for "cfg80211: fix regulatory NULL dereference" broke user regulaotry hints and it did not address the fact that last_request was left populated even if the previous regulatory hint was stale due to the wiphy disappearing. Fix user reguluatory hints by only bailing out if for those regulatory hints where a request_wiphy is expected. The stale last_request considerations are addressed through the previous fixes on last_request where we reset the last_request to a static world regdom request upon reset_regdomains(). In this case though we further enhance the effect by simply restoring reguluatory settings completely. Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org Cc: Johannes Berg <johannes.berg@intel.com> Signed-off-by: Luis R. Rodriguez <mcgrof@qca.qualcomm.com> Reviewed-by: Johannes Berg <johannes@sipsolutions.net> Signed-off-by: John W. Linville <linville@tuxdriver.com>
There is a theoretical race that if hit will trigger a crash. The race is between when we issue the first regulatory hint, regulatory_hint_core(), gets processed by the workqueue and between when the first device gets registered to the wireless core. This is not easy to reproduce but it was easy to do so through the regulatory simulator I have been working on. This is a port of the fix I implemented there [1]. [1] https://github.com/mcgrof/regsim/commit/a246ccf81f059cb662eee288aa13100f631e4cc8 Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org Cc: Johannes Berg <johannes.berg@intel.com> Signed-off-by: Luis R. Rodriguez <mcgrof@qca.qualcomm.com> Signed-off-by: John W. Linville <linville@tuxdriver.com>
By the time userspace returns with a response to the regulatory domain request, the wiphy causing the request might have gone away. If this is so, reject the update but mark the request as having been processed anyway. Cc: Luis R. Rodriguez <lrodriguez@qca.qualcomm.com> Signed-off-by: Johannes Berg <johannes.berg@intel.com> Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org Signed-off-by: John W. Linville <linville@tuxdriver.com>