On Tue, Aug 08, 2023 at 09:18:51PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote: > On Tue, Aug 08, 2023 at 02:27:04PM -0300, Jason Gunthorpe wrote: > > I missed two paths where __iommu_probe_device() can be called while > > already holding the device_lock() for the device that is to be probed. > > > > This causes a deadlock because __iommu_probe_device() will attempt to > > re-acquire the lock. > > > > Organize things so that these two paths can re-use the existing already > > held device_lock by marking the call chains based on if the lock is held > > or not. > > > > This is an incremental on top of Joerg's next, but it could also be handled by > > respinning the last patch in that series. Please let me know. > > The issues this series fixes have been causing quite a bit of breakage > in a range of CI systems (Arm's internal stuff, KernelCI and my personal > CI). Both the KernelCI bot and my colleague Aishwarya (CCed) bisected > which pointed to this series so I've tested them - I didn't cover every > board but this does fix at least some boots so: > > Tested-by: Mark Brown <broonie@xxxxxxxxxx> > > It'd be great to get these fixes into -next, thanks for getting the > patches out so quickly. Yes, sorry about that, this series didn't get picked up by any arm testing before getting merged.. Thanks, Jason
