[PATCH] ath10k: fix kernel panic while shutting down AP

Michal Kazior michal.kazior at tieto.com
Wed Oct 8 02:45:38 PDT 2014

On 8 October 2014 11:16, Rajkumar Manoharan <rmanohar at qti.qualcomm.com> wrote:
> The commit "ath10k: workaround fw beaconing bug" is freeing
> DMA-coherent memory in irq context which is hitting BUG ON
> in ARM platforms. Fix this by moving dma_free out of spin
> lock.

I hardly see how moving the freeing outside the spinlock is a fix.

> kernel BUG at mm/vmalloc.c:1512!
> Internal error: Oops - BUG: 0 [#1] PREEMPT SMP ARM
> CPU: 0 PID: 722 Comm: hostapd Not tainted 3.14.0 #3
> task: dd58b840 ti: da6a6000 task.ti: da6a6000
> PC is at vunmap+0x24/0x34
> LR is at __arm_dma_free.isra.21+0x12c/0x190
> [<c02a97d0>] (vunmap) from [<c021f81c>] (__arm_dma_free.isra.21+0x12c/0x190)
> [<c021f81c>] (__arm_dma_free.isra.21) from [<bf3b2440>]
>                         (ath10k_mac_vif_beacon_free+0xf4/0x100 [ath10k_core])
> [<bf3b2440>] (ath10k_mac_vif_beacon_free [ath10k_core]) from [<bf3b2490>]
>                         (ath10k_remove_interface+0x44/0x1ec [ath10k_core])
> [<bf3b2490>] (ath10k_remove_interface [ath10k_core]) from [<bf3352e4>]
>                         (ieee80211_add_virtual_monitor+0x9d8/0x9f0 [mac80211])
> [<bf3352e4>] (ieee80211_add_virtual_monitor [mac80211]) from [<bf33530c>]
>                         (ieee80211_stop+0x10/0x18 [mac80211])
> [<bf33530c>] (ieee80211_stop [mac80211]) from [<c040d144>]
>                         (__dev_close_many+0x9c/0xcc)

 1. How can even ieee80211_add_virtual_monitor() call
ath10k_remove_interface()? Upstream ath10k doesn't advertise
IEEE80211_HW_WANT_MONITOR_VIF. This call trace is either invalid,
you're not using upstream ath10k and/or have custom patches applied to

 2. How can ieee80211_stop() be called from an interrupt context
anyway? ieee80211_stop() calls ieee80211_do_stop() which calls
ieee80211_roc_purge() which tries to get a hold of local->mtx. This
implies ieee80211_stop() isn't design to be run in an interrupt
context to begin with so I don't see why ath10k should even care if
ath10k_remove_interface() is called in an interrupt context at this


More information about the ath10k mailing list