Re: [PATCH v6] serial: 8250: fix use-after-free in IRQ chain handling

[Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>]

On Wed, Jul 08, 2026 at 04:30:21PM +0800, Wang Zhaolong wrote:
> Hi Jing,
> 
> No.
> 
> A changelog entry describes what changed between my v2 and my v3.  It is not
> a claim that nobody else ever wrote a similar line in another patch.
> 
> The functional fix in my series was already in my v1 on May 27.  Whether my
> v1 commit message named the UAF or not does not change the code: holding the
> same mutex across link and unlink closes that window too.  My v1 commit
> message intentionally described the failure mode I had reproduced and
> validated: the unbalanced IRQ enable warning.  I did not want to overstate the
> impact beyond the evidence I had at the time.
> 
> The v3 rename follows Jiri's review comment that hash_mutex is no longer an
> appropriate name.  The __must_hold() and lockdep_assert_held() annotations
> document the locking rule after the mutex was moved to the caller.  They are
> not the functional fix.
> 
> I do not agree that Co-developed-by is appropriate for my patch, and I do not
> authorize adding a Co-developed-by tag for me without my Signed-off-by.
> 
> I am not going to continue this argument.  Maintainers can decide which patch,
> if any, to take.

As I said before, I'm not going to take either until you all can agree.

And yes, a co-developed-by does require a signed-off-by.  Without you
all agreeing, none of this is going to be acceptable, sorry.

Also, all of these really look like they were created/found/whatever by
a LLM, which is not being documented, and for that reason alone I think
I need to reject all of these until that is properly addressed.

thanks,

greg k-h