Re: [PATCH] m68k: nfcon: don't call console_is_registered in nfcon_device

Re: [PATCH] m68k: nfcon: don't call console_is_registered in nfcon_device

[Geert Uytterhoeven]

Hi Andreas,

CC john, petr, serial

Thanks for your patch!

On Sat, 15 Aug 2026 at 09:33, Andreas Schwab <schwab@linux-m68k.org> wrote:
> Since 7c2af0f634f1 ("tty: tty_io: use console_list_lock for list
> synchronization") show_cons_active calls the device method under the
> console_list_lock, but console_is_registered tries to acquire
> console_list_lock as well, causing a deadlock.  It should not be necessary
> to check console_is_registered here since the function should not be
> called in the fist place when the console is not registered.

Nice catch!

> Fixes: 7c2af0f634f1 ("tty: tty_io: use console_list_lock for list synchronization")
> Signed-off-by: Andreas Schwab <schwab@linux-m68k.org>

Reviewed-by: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org>
i.e. will queue in the m68k tree for v7.3.

> --- a/arch/m68k/emu/nfcon.c
> +++ b/arch/m68k/emu/nfcon.c
> @@ -49,7 +49,7 @@ static void nfcon_write(struct console *con, const char *str,
>  static struct tty_driver *nfcon_device(struct console *con, int *index)
>  {
>         *index = 0;
> -       return console_is_registered(con) ? nfcon_tty_driver : NULL;

Interestingly, that call to console_is_registered() was added in
commit de61a1a3a0830710 ("tty: nfcon: use console_is_registered()"),
i.e. in the same series that added the extra locking...

> +       return nfcon_tty_driver;
>  }
>
>  static struct console nf_console = {

Gr{oetje,eeting}s,

                        Geert

-- 
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@linux-m68k.org

In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
                                -- Linus Torvalds

Re: [PATCH] m68k: nfcon: don't call console_is_registered in nfcon_device

[John Ogness]

On 2026-08-17, Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org> wrote:
> On Sat, 15 Aug 2026 at 09:33, Andreas Schwab <schwab@linux-m68k.org> wrote:
>> Since 7c2af0f634f1 ("tty: tty_io: use console_list_lock for list
>> synchronization") show_cons_active calls the device method under the
>> console_list_lock, but console_is_registered tries to acquire
>> console_list_lock as well, causing a deadlock.  It should not be necessary
>> to check console_is_registered here since the function should not be
>> called in the fist place when the console is not registered.
>
> Nice catch!
>
>> Fixes: 7c2af0f634f1 ("tty: tty_io: use console_list_lock for list synchronization")
>> Signed-off-by: Andreas Schwab <schwab@linux-m68k.org>
>
> Reviewed-by: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org>

FWIW:

Reviewed-by: John Ogness <john.ogness@linutronix.de>

Re: [PATCH] m68k: nfcon: don't call console_is_registered in nfcon_device

[Petr Mladek]

On Mon 2026-08-17 11:26:57, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> Hi Andreas,
> 
> CC john, petr, serial
> 
> Thanks for your patch!
> 
> On Sat, 15 Aug 2026 at 09:33, Andreas Schwab <schwab@linux-m68k.org> wrote:
> > Since 7c2af0f634f1 ("tty: tty_io: use console_list_lock for list
> > synchronization") show_cons_active calls the device method under the
> > console_list_lock, but console_is_registered tries to acquire
> > console_list_lock as well, causing a deadlock.  It should not be necessary
> > to check console_is_registered here since the function should not be
> > called in the fist place when the console is not registered.
> 
> Nice catch!

+1

> > Fixes: 7c2af0f634f1 ("tty: tty_io: use console_list_lock for list synchronization")
> > Signed-off-by: Andreas Schwab <schwab@linux-m68k.org>
> 
> Reviewed-by: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org>
> i.e. will queue in the m68k tree for v7.3.
> 
> > --- a/arch/m68k/emu/nfcon.c
> > +++ b/arch/m68k/emu/nfcon.c
> > @@ -49,7 +49,7 @@ static void nfcon_write(struct console *con, const char *str,
> >  static struct tty_driver *nfcon_device(struct console *con, int *index)
> >  {
> >         *index = 0;
> > -       return console_is_registered(con) ? nfcon_tty_driver : NULL;
> 
> Interestingly, that call to console_is_registered() was added in
> commit de61a1a3a0830710 ("tty: nfcon: use console_is_registered()"),
> i.e. in the same series that added the extra locking...

Sigh, we clearly did not check the callers of this function properly
at that time :/

> > +       return nfcon_tty_driver;

Honestly, I do not feel comfortable with removing the check
completely.

The commit de61a1a3a083071 ("tty: nfcon: use console_is_registered()"
used console_is_registered() instead of (con->flags & CON_ENABLED).
And CON_ENABLED is historically cleared when the console is suspended,
see console_suspend().

Is is OK to return a valid struct tty_driver for a non-registered
or suspended console for all con->device() callers?

I have found only 4 callers:

  $> git grep "\->device("
  drivers/tty/serial/kgdboc.c:            if (cons->device && cons->device(cons, &idx) == p &&
  drivers/tty/tty_io.c:           struct tty_driver *drv = cs[i]->device(cs[i], &index);
  fs/proc/consoles.c:             driver = con->device(con, &index);
  kernel/printk/printk.c:         driver = c->device(c, index);

These are:

  + configure_kgdboc() in drivers/tty/serial/kgdboc.c
  + show_cons_active() in drivers/tty/tty_io.c
  + show_console_dev() in fs/proc/consoles.c
  + console_device() in kernel/printk/printk.c

, where

  + configure_kgdboc() is used during the system initialization
    when the console should not be suspended

  + show_cons_active() and show_console_dev() are questionable.
    Maybe, we should not advertise the device to the userspace
    when it is suspended.

  + console_device() is used in tty_kopen() -> tty_lookup_driver().
    Also here we likely should not allow to open a suspended device.

Let's take a step back:

We should define the locking context for con->device() callback.
It seems that it is called under console_lock() and
console_srcu_read_lock() in:

  + configure_kgdboc()
  + console_device()

and under console_list_lock() and console_lock() in

  + show_console_dev()
  + show_cons_active()

I would put aside the console_lock(). We are trying to obsolete it.
So it is down to

   console_srcu_read_lock() vs console_list_lock()

Both of them look reasonable. So, I think about adding a variant
of console_is_registered_srcu_read_locked() which would work
with both locking. Something like:

diff --git a/arch/m68k/emu/nfcon.c b/arch/m68k/emu/nfcon.c
index d41260672e24..d211b6c4da26 100644
--- a/arch/m68k/emu/nfcon.c
+++ b/arch/m68k/emu/nfcon.c
@@ -49,7 +49,7 @@ static void nfcon_write(struct console *con, const char *str,
 static struct tty_driver *nfcon_device(struct console *con, int *index)
 {
 	*index = 0;
-	return console_is_registered(con) ? nfcon_tty_driver : NULL;
+	return console_is_registered_srcu_read_locked(con) ? nfcon_tty_driver : NULL;
 }
 
 static struct console nf_console = {
diff --git a/include/linux/console.h b/include/linux/console.h
index d624200cfc17..b90527db4eca 100644
--- a/include/linux/console.h
+++ b/include/linux/console.h
@@ -311,7 +311,7 @@ struct nbcon_write_context {
  * @name:		The name of the console driver
  * @write:		Legacy write callback to output messages (Optional)
  * @read:		Read callback for console input (Optional)
- * @device:		The underlying TTY device driver (Optional)
+ * @device:		The underlying TTY device driver (Optional) [1]
  * @unblank:		Callback to unblank the console (Optional)
  * @setup:		Callback for initializing the console (Optional)
  * @exit:		Callback for teardown of the console (Optional)
@@ -334,6 +334,9 @@ struct nbcon_write_context {
  * @kthread:		Printer kthread for this console
  * @rcuwait:		RCU-safe wait object for @kthread waking
  * @irq_work:		Defer @kthread waking to IRQ work context
+ *
+ * [1] The @device callback must be called under either console_list_lock()
+ *     or console_srcu_read_lock().
  */
 struct console {
 	char			name[16];
@@ -473,8 +476,13 @@ struct console {
 };
 
 #ifdef CONFIG_LOCKDEP
+extern bool console_list_lock_is_held(void);
 extern void lockdep_assert_console_list_lock_held(void);
 #else
+static inline bool console_list_lock_is_held(void)
+{
+	return 1;
+}
 static inline void lockdep_assert_console_list_lock_held(void)
 {
 }
@@ -555,6 +563,16 @@ static inline bool console_is_registered_locked(const struct console *con)
 	return !hlist_unhashed(&con->node);
 }
 
+/*
+ * Variant of console_is_registered() when either the console_srcu_read_lock
+ * or console_list_lock is held.
+*/
+static inline bool console_is_registered_srcu_read_locked(const struct console *con)
+{
+	lockdep_assert(console_srcu_read_lock_is_held() || console_list_lock_is_held());
+	return !hlist_unhashed(&con->node);
+}
+
 /*
  * console_is_registered - Check if the console is registered
  * @con:	struct console pointer of console to check
diff --git a/kernel/printk/printk.c b/kernel/printk/printk.c
index 2fe9a963c823..9b632b91f096 100644
--- a/kernel/printk/printk.c
+++ b/kernel/printk/printk.c
@@ -109,6 +109,12 @@ static struct lockdep_map console_lock_dep_map = {
 	.name = "console_lock"
 };
 
+bool console_list_lock_is_held(void)
+{
+	return lockdep_is_held(&console_mutex);
+}
+EXPORT_SYMBOL(console_list_lock_is_held);
+
 void lockdep_assert_console_list_lock_held(void)
 {
 	lockdep_assert_held(&console_mutex);


Alternative solution would be to require the srcu locking.
IMHO, it should be perfectly fine to use the srcu_read_lock in
both show_console_dev() and show_cons_active().

What do you think, please?
John?

Best Regards,
Petr

Re: [PATCH] m68k: nfcon: don't call console_is_registered in nfcon_device

[John Ogness]

On 2026-08-20, Petr Mladek <pmladek@suse.com> wrote:
>> > --- a/arch/m68k/emu/nfcon.c
>> > +++ b/arch/m68k/emu/nfcon.c
>> > @@ -49,7 +49,7 @@ static void nfcon_write(struct console *con, const char *str,
>> >  static struct tty_driver *nfcon_device(struct console *con, int *index)
>> >  {
>> >         *index = 0;
>> > -       return console_is_registered(con) ? nfcon_tty_driver : NULL;
>> 
>> Interestingly, that call to console_is_registered() was added in
>> commit de61a1a3a0830710 ("tty: nfcon: use console_is_registered()"),
>> i.e. in the same series that added the extra locking...
>
> Sigh, we clearly did not check the callers of this function properly
> at that time :/
>
>> > +       return nfcon_tty_driver;
>
> Honestly, I do not feel comfortable with removing the check
> completely.
>
> The commit de61a1a3a083071 ("tty: nfcon: use console_is_registered()"
> used console_is_registered() instead of (con->flags & CON_ENABLED).
> And CON_ENABLED is historically cleared when the console is suspended,
> see console_suspend().

Since the NatFeat console driver never implemented suspend/resume
callbacks, I assume it was intended to identify if the console was
registered.

> Is is OK to return a valid struct tty_driver for a non-registered
> or suspended console for all con->device() callers?
>
> I have found only 4 callers:
>
>   $> git grep "\->device("
>   drivers/tty/serial/kgdboc.c:            if (cons->device && cons->device(cons, &idx) == p &&
>   drivers/tty/tty_io.c:           struct tty_driver *drv = cs[i]->device(cs[i], &index);
>   fs/proc/consoles.c:             driver = con->device(con, &index);
>   kernel/printk/printk.c:         driver = c->device(c, index);
>
> These are:
>
>   + configure_kgdboc() in drivers/tty/serial/kgdboc.c
>   + show_cons_active() in drivers/tty/tty_io.c
>   + show_console_dev() in fs/proc/consoles.c
>   + console_device() in kernel/printk/printk.c
>
> , where
>
>   + configure_kgdboc() is used during the system initialization
>     when the console should not be suspended
>
>   + show_cons_active() and show_console_dev() are questionable.
>     Maybe, we should not advertise the device to the userspace
>     when it is suspended.
>
>   + console_device() is used in tty_kopen() -> tty_lookup_driver().
>     Also here we likely should not allow to open a suspended device.

All of these callbacks are done when the console is guaranteed to be
registered (or not yet fully unregistered).

> Let's take a step back:
>
> We should define the locking context for con->device() callback.
> It seems that it is called under console_lock() and
> console_srcu_read_lock() in:
>
>   + configure_kgdboc()
>   + console_device()
>
> and under console_list_lock() and console_lock() in
>
>   + show_console_dev()
>   + show_cons_active()
>
> I would put aside the console_lock(). We are trying to obsolete it.
> So it is down to
>
>    console_srcu_read_lock() vs console_list_lock()
>
> Both of them look reasonable. So, I think about adding a variant
> of console_is_registered_srcu_read_locked() which would work
> with both locking. Something like:
>
> diff --git a/arch/m68k/emu/nfcon.c b/arch/m68k/emu/nfcon.c
> index d41260672e24..d211b6c4da26 100644
> --- a/arch/m68k/emu/nfcon.c
> +++ b/arch/m68k/emu/nfcon.c
> @@ -49,7 +49,7 @@ static void nfcon_write(struct console *con, const char *str,
>  static struct tty_driver *nfcon_device(struct console *con, int *index)
>  {
>  	*index = 0;
> -	return console_is_registered(con) ? nfcon_tty_driver : NULL;
> +	return console_is_registered_srcu_read_locked(con) ? nfcon_tty_driver : NULL;
>  }
>  
>  static struct console nf_console = {
> diff --git a/include/linux/console.h b/include/linux/console.h
> index d624200cfc17..b90527db4eca 100644
> --- a/include/linux/console.h
> +++ b/include/linux/console.h
> @@ -311,7 +311,7 @@ struct nbcon_write_context {
>   * @name:		The name of the console driver
>   * @write:		Legacy write callback to output messages (Optional)
>   * @read:		Read callback for console input (Optional)
> - * @device:		The underlying TTY device driver (Optional)
> + * @device:		The underlying TTY device driver (Optional) [1]
>   * @unblank:		Callback to unblank the console (Optional)
>   * @setup:		Callback for initializing the console (Optional)
>   * @exit:		Callback for teardown of the console (Optional)
> @@ -334,6 +334,9 @@ struct nbcon_write_context {
>   * @kthread:		Printer kthread for this console
>   * @rcuwait:		RCU-safe wait object for @kthread waking
>   * @irq_work:		Defer @kthread waking to IRQ work context
> + *
> + * [1] The @device callback must be called under either console_list_lock()
> + *     or console_srcu_read_lock().
>   */
>  struct console {
>  	char			name[16];
> @@ -473,8 +476,13 @@ struct console {
>  };
>  
>  #ifdef CONFIG_LOCKDEP
> +extern bool console_list_lock_is_held(void);
>  extern void lockdep_assert_console_list_lock_held(void);
>  #else
> +static inline bool console_list_lock_is_held(void)
> +{
> +	return 1;
> +}
>  static inline void lockdep_assert_console_list_lock_held(void)
>  {
>  }
> @@ -555,6 +563,16 @@ static inline bool console_is_registered_locked(const struct console *con)
>  	return !hlist_unhashed(&con->node);
>  }
>  
> +/*
> + * Variant of console_is_registered() when either the console_srcu_read_lock
> + * or console_list_lock is held.
> +*/
> +static inline bool console_is_registered_srcu_read_locked(const struct console *con)
> +{
> +	lockdep_assert(console_srcu_read_lock_is_held() || console_list_lock_is_held());
> +	return !hlist_unhashed(&con->node);
> +}
> +
>  /*
>   * console_is_registered - Check if the console is registered
>   * @con:	struct console pointer of console to check
> diff --git a/kernel/printk/printk.c b/kernel/printk/printk.c
> index 2fe9a963c823..9b632b91f096 100644
> --- a/kernel/printk/printk.c
> +++ b/kernel/printk/printk.c
> @@ -109,6 +109,12 @@ static struct lockdep_map console_lock_dep_map = {
>  	.name = "console_lock"
>  };
>  
> +bool console_list_lock_is_held(void)
> +{
> +	return lockdep_is_held(&console_mutex);
> +}
> +EXPORT_SYMBOL(console_list_lock_is_held);
> +
>  void lockdep_assert_console_list_lock_held(void)
>  {
>  	lockdep_assert_held(&console_mutex);
>
>
> Alternative solution would be to require the srcu locking.
> IMHO, it should be perfectly fine to use the srcu_read_lock in
> both show_console_dev() and show_cons_active().
>
> What do you think, please?
> John?

I do not think any of that is necessary. I think it is enough to allow
the ->device() callback to assume it is registered. I see no reason why
the _callback_ should ever need to take the console_list_lock or the
console_srcu_read_lock.

John

Re: [PATCH] m68k: nfcon: don't call console_is_registered in nfcon_device

[Petr Mladek]

On Thu 2026-08-20 15:44:34, John Ogness wrote:
> On 2026-08-20, Petr Mladek <pmladek@suse.com> wrote:
> >> > --- a/arch/m68k/emu/nfcon.c
> >> > +++ b/arch/m68k/emu/nfcon.c
> >> > @@ -49,7 +49,7 @@ static void nfcon_write(struct console *con, const char *str,
> >> >  static struct tty_driver *nfcon_device(struct console *con, int *index)
> >> >  {
> >> >         *index = 0;
> >> > -       return console_is_registered(con) ? nfcon_tty_driver : NULL;
> >> 
> >> Interestingly, that call to console_is_registered() was added in
> >> commit de61a1a3a0830710 ("tty: nfcon: use console_is_registered()"),
> >> i.e. in the same series that added the extra locking...
> >
> > Sigh, we clearly did not check the callers of this function properly
> > at that time :/
> >
> >> > +       return nfcon_tty_driver;
> >
> > Honestly, I do not feel comfortable with removing the check
> > completely.
> >
> > The commit de61a1a3a083071 ("tty: nfcon: use console_is_registered()"
> > used console_is_registered() instead of (con->flags & CON_ENABLED).
> > And CON_ENABLED is historically cleared when the console is suspended,
> > see console_suspend().
> 
> Since the NatFeat console driver never implemented suspend/resume
> callbacks, I assume it was intended to identify if the console was
> registered.

Good point!

> > Is is OK to return a valid struct tty_driver for a non-registered
> > or suspended console for all con->device() callers?
> >
> > I have found only 4 callers:
> >
> >   $> git grep "\->device("
> >   drivers/tty/serial/kgdboc.c:            if (cons->device && cons->device(cons, &idx) == p &&
> >   drivers/tty/tty_io.c:           struct tty_driver *drv = cs[i]->device(cs[i], &index);
> >   fs/proc/consoles.c:             driver = con->device(con, &index);
> >   kernel/printk/printk.c:         driver = c->device(c, index);
> >
> > These are:
> >
> >   + configure_kgdboc() in drivers/tty/serial/kgdboc.c
> >   + show_cons_active() in drivers/tty/tty_io.c
> >   + show_console_dev() in fs/proc/consoles.c
> >   + console_device() in kernel/printk/printk.c
> >
> > , where
> >
> >   + configure_kgdboc() is used during the system initialization
> >     when the console should not be suspended
> >
> >   + show_cons_active() and show_console_dev() are questionable.
> >     Maybe, we should not advertise the device to the userspace
> >     when it is suspended.
> >
> >   + console_device() is used in tty_kopen() -> tty_lookup_driver().
> >     Also here we likely should not allow to open a suspended device.
> 
> All of these callbacks are done when the console is guaranteed to be
> registered (or not yet fully unregistered).

Ditto.

> > Let's take a step back:
> >
> > We should define the locking context for con->device() callback.
> > It seems that it is called under console_lock() and
> > console_srcu_read_lock() in:
> >
> >   + configure_kgdboc()
> >   + console_device()
> >
> > and under console_list_lock() and console_lock() in
> >
> >   + show_console_dev()
> >   + show_cons_active()
> >
> > I would put aside the console_lock(). We are trying to obsolete it.
> > So it is down to
> >
> >    console_srcu_read_lock() vs console_list_lock()
> >
> > Both of them look reasonable. So, I think about adding a variant
> > of console_is_registered_srcu_read_locked() which would work
> > with both locking. Something like:
> >
> > diff --git a/arch/m68k/emu/nfcon.c b/arch/m68k/emu/nfcon.c
> > index d41260672e24..d211b6c4da26 100644
> > --- a/arch/m68k/emu/nfcon.c
> > +++ b/arch/m68k/emu/nfcon.c
> > @@ -49,7 +49,7 @@ static void nfcon_write(struct console *con, const char *str,
> >  static struct tty_driver *nfcon_device(struct console *con, int *index)
> >  {
> >  	*index = 0;
> > -	return console_is_registered(con) ? nfcon_tty_driver : NULL;
> > +	return console_is_registered_srcu_read_locked(con) ? nfcon_tty_driver : NULL;
> >  }
> >  
> >  static struct console nf_console = {
> > diff --git a/include/linux/console.h b/include/linux/console.h
> > index d624200cfc17..b90527db4eca 100644
> > --- a/include/linux/console.h
> > +++ b/include/linux/console.h
> > @@ -311,7 +311,7 @@ struct nbcon_write_context {
> >   * @name:		The name of the console driver
> >   * @write:		Legacy write callback to output messages (Optional)
> >   * @read:		Read callback for console input (Optional)
> > - * @device:		The underlying TTY device driver (Optional)
> > + * @device:		The underlying TTY device driver (Optional) [1]
> >   * @unblank:		Callback to unblank the console (Optional)
> >   * @setup:		Callback for initializing the console (Optional)
> >   * @exit:		Callback for teardown of the console (Optional)
> > @@ -334,6 +334,9 @@ struct nbcon_write_context {
> >   * @kthread:		Printer kthread for this console
> >   * @rcuwait:		RCU-safe wait object for @kthread waking
> >   * @irq_work:		Defer @kthread waking to IRQ work context
> > + *
> > + * [1] The @device callback must be called under either console_list_lock()
> > + *     or console_srcu_read_lock().
> >   */
> >  struct console {
> >  	char			name[16];
> > @@ -473,8 +476,13 @@ struct console {
> >  };
> >  
> >  #ifdef CONFIG_LOCKDEP
> > +extern bool console_list_lock_is_held(void);
> >  extern void lockdep_assert_console_list_lock_held(void);
> >  #else
> > +static inline bool console_list_lock_is_held(void)
> > +{
> > +	return 1;
> > +}
> >  static inline void lockdep_assert_console_list_lock_held(void)
> >  {
> >  }
> > @@ -555,6 +563,16 @@ static inline bool console_is_registered_locked(const struct console *con)
> >  	return !hlist_unhashed(&con->node);
> >  }
> >  
> > +/*
> > + * Variant of console_is_registered() when either the console_srcu_read_lock
> > + * or console_list_lock is held.
> > +*/
> > +static inline bool console_is_registered_srcu_read_locked(const struct console *con)
> > +{
> > +	lockdep_assert(console_srcu_read_lock_is_held() || console_list_lock_is_held());
> > +	return !hlist_unhashed(&con->node);
> > +}
> > +
> >  /*
> >   * console_is_registered - Check if the console is registered
> >   * @con:	struct console pointer of console to check
> > diff --git a/kernel/printk/printk.c b/kernel/printk/printk.c
> > index 2fe9a963c823..9b632b91f096 100644
> > --- a/kernel/printk/printk.c
> > +++ b/kernel/printk/printk.c
> > @@ -109,6 +109,12 @@ static struct lockdep_map console_lock_dep_map = {
> >  	.name = "console_lock"
> >  };
> >  
> > +bool console_list_lock_is_held(void)
> > +{
> > +	return lockdep_is_held(&console_mutex);
> > +}
> > +EXPORT_SYMBOL(console_list_lock_is_held);
> > +
> >  void lockdep_assert_console_list_lock_held(void)
> >  {
> >  	lockdep_assert_held(&console_mutex);
> >
> >
> > Alternative solution would be to require the srcu locking.
> > IMHO, it should be perfectly fine to use the srcu_read_lock in
> > both show_console_dev() and show_cons_active().
> >
> > What do you think, please?
> > John?
> 
> I do not think any of that is necessary. I think it is enough to allow
> the ->device() callback to assume it is registered. I see no reason why
> the _callback_ should ever need to take the console_list_lock or the
> console_srcu_read_lock.

Fair enough. I see that other con->device() callbacks just return
the pointer without checking anything.

So, the fix looks good after all.

Reviewed-by: Petr Mladek <pmladek@suse.com>

Best Regards,
Petr