linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH net v2] iavf: fix deadlock in reset handling

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <14cccd55-f737-428b-91da-1daf68d4f899@intel.com>
Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2026 10:50:03 -0800
From: Jacob Keller <jacob.e.keller@...el.com>
To: Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>, Petr Oros <poros@...hat.com>,
	<netdev@...r.kernel.org>
CC: <ivecera@...hat.com>, <aleksandr.loktionov@...el.com>,
	<shaojijie@...wei.com>, Tony Nguyen <anthony.l.nguyen@...el.com>, "Przemek
 Kitszel" <przemyslaw.kitszel@...el.com>, Andrew Lunn <andrew+netdev@...n.ch>,
	"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
	Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, Stanislav Fomichev <sdf@...ichev.me>,
	<intel-wired-lan@...ts.osuosl.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net v2] iavf: fix deadlock in reset handling



On 2/11/2026 3:50 AM, Paolo Abeni wrote:
> On 2/7/26 11:22 AM, Petr Oros wrote:
>> -/**
>> - * iavf_wait_for_reset - Wait for reset to finish.
>> - * @adapter: board private structure
>> - *
>> - * Returns 0 if reset finished successfully, negative on timeout or interrupt.
>> - */
>> -int iavf_wait_for_reset(struct iavf_adapter *adapter)
>> -{
>> -	int ret = wait_event_interruptible_timeout(adapter->reset_waitqueue,
>> -					!iavf_is_reset_in_progress(adapter),
>> -					msecs_to_jiffies(5000));
> 
> AFAICS, after this change nobody waits anymore on reset_waitqueue, do we
> still need such wait queue head? I think a bunch of additional code
> could be dropped.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Paolo
> 

Yea, that seems correct. We could do that cleanup through next instead 
if we want to keep this patch smaller and focused on the fix. I don't 
mind either way.

Thanks,
Jake