wifi: esp_at: claim net_context in rx #43522
Merged
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Claim the net_context mutext associated with a socket before claiming the socket mutex. The receive callback claims the net_context mutex internally, which will now always succeed immediately. The TX path claims the net_context mutex before the socket mutex, and if we don't use the same order, we can end up in a deadlock. Fixes #43470. Signed-off-by: Jordan Yates <[email protected]>
rlubos
approved these changes
Mar 9, 2022
jukkar
approved these changes
Mar 14, 2022
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Claim the net_context mutext associated with a socket before claiming
the socket mutex. The receive callback claims the net_context mutex
internally, which will now always succeed immediately.
The TX path claims the net_context mutex before the socket mutex, and if
we don't use the same order, we can end up in a deadlock.
Fixes #43470.
I'm not convinced this is the best solution, but it does fix the deadlock potential without a larger code refactor.