On Mon, 2023-06-12 at 14:10 +0200, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > On Mon, Jun 12, 2023 at 01:43:23PM +0200, Johannes Berg wrote: > > On Mon, 2023-06-12 at 10:26 +0000, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > > > From: Johannes Berg <johannes.berg@xxxxxxxxx> > > > > > > [ Upstream commit f7e60032c6618dfd643c7210d5cba2789e2de2e2 ] > > > > > > This should use wiphy_lock() now instead of requiring the > > > RTNL, since __cfg80211_leave() via cfg80211_leave() is now > > > requiring that lock to be held. > > > > You should perhaps hold off on this. While all this is correct, I missed > > something that Dan found later: > > > > https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/wireless/wireless.git/commit/?id=996c3117dae4c02b38a3cb68e5c2aec9d907ec15 > > > > I'll have this in the next pull request. > > > > I suppose _both_ should go to stable, and nobody ever seems to run into > > this patch (at least lockdep would loudly complain), but stills seems > > better in the short term to have missing locking than a deadlock. > > Thanks for letting me know, I've dropped this from all queues now. > The above commit has landed in Linus's tree, and I think you actually should pick up both of these now - there's a lockdep assertion there and locking issues triggered that I (if erroneously) fixed. Seems that we hardly ever get to that code though. Should I send those patches individually? johannes
