From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from sipsolutions.net (s3.sipsolutions.net [168.119.38.16]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7361251FCBD; Thu, 15 Oct 2026 12:54:37 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=168.119.38.16 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1792068879; cv=none; b=jddoJnS7FFZ8AKDg5E18FGT33xI5I2cWY9h668i7KpAVR4hZrbl5C3GUdsTNotwybc08tWjTLFQFfx8PrWaKjEwx87XVGuXHQ9BWdhbkbc4ryeYbKIMriVvJyB3jLcpLkOwfUIQrqnMgy0lgKLlRzwSweeZAn8C6/EOs+4z1kDQ= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1792068879; c=relaxed/simple; bh=Vj+Ks2WpJd32vcgw6WagxzhHIqVHbI0rs33EKvZlLZc=; h=Message-ID:Subject:From:To:Cc:Date:In-Reply-To:References: Content-Type:MIME-Version; b=FuX+6COqcWeJ00EsQ9U5rdETzRRauI2UOQsZgtwXFbdlTNbCc41ldbYOeqHcetRX2rfjumHBkLGsOGr8rLSXNJTEAICafMghUpcOjxuCWYmmwjIiSQhrcu9GJgghFKQu/82nW/UcshJ2+XzdUwQjmxBiK4nL/jawlY78EikQVrI= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=permerror header.from=sipsolutions.net; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=sipsolutions.net; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=sipsolutions.net header.i=@sipsolutions.net header.b=QCVmWfGA; arc=none smtp.client-ip=168.119.38.16 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=permerror header.from=sipsolutions.net Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=sipsolutions.net Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=sipsolutions.net header.i=@sipsolutions.net header.b="QCVmWfGA" DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=sipsolutions.net; s=mail; h=MIME-Version:Content-Transfer-Encoding: Content-Type:References:In-Reply-To:Date:Cc:To:From:Subject:Message-ID:Sender :Reply-To:Content-ID:Content-Description:Resent-Date:Resent-From:Resent-To: Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID; bh=PbtHM47vD37xRugiLgkVK73GPsLMSnus4Srt6/JuRtE=; t=1792068877; x=1793278477; b=QCVmWfGAV2rEnboyevEaUQU4CZKC7mtg4yD+Cc/LGFgKNVY wE1kaZgJnm8lKriA7Ol+u4YzYregeNFLHtxYerpdCflXjE5GaLYucMlOlRJWwbe6wI1K7BwvWGHbY uI8/nEPRY1/sj8S6YhuUUThmr7sF4zduce27lqjkipiHnlOPcA3JMHabls5bG8eF9NGhNE3lgR8LE n2ajFStMhp4+Nou2RzooowWdeSOqu7WhMW33Yk6hQRaps7Mje2qAbpKFXDjvrCznkv1TV5GTff5yt MUOiHVa5WD4O4DlRGaFb3KFwEGku+Tv2U3xDsXEySJnfi9iOMr22SlYV3/paPl1Q==; Received: by sipsolutions.net with esmtpsa (TLS1.3:ECDHE_X25519__ECDSA_SECP256R1_SHA256__AES_256_GCM:256) (Exim 4.98.2) (envelope-from ) id 1xHKyg-00000003bSS-0Zit; Thu, 15 Oct 2026 14:54:34 +0200 Message-ID: <7e95ff419f81425b9fa18c74f3a77208764751bb.camel@sipsolutions.net> Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] wireless-next-2026-10-07 From: Johannes Berg To: Oliver Hartkopp , Kuniyuki Iwashima , Jakub Kicinski Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2026 14:54:33 +0200 In-Reply-To: <51e3f9ce-fa8c-4cdb-b5bf-d05f53cb52ac@hartkopp.net> References: <20261007205827.467974-3-johannes@sipsolutions.net> <20261007163616.1088d364@kernel.org> <44cb773984f61ae85b8c42904ef1ce7a62e85e4e.camel@sipsolutions.net> <51e3f9ce-fa8c-4cdb-b5bf-d05f53cb52ac@hartkopp.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable User-Agent: Evolution 3.60.2 (3.60.2-2.fc44) Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: netdev@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-malware-bazaar: not-scanned On Thu, 2026-10-15 at 14:43 +0200, Oliver Hartkopp wrote: >=20 > On 15.10.26 14:27, Johannes Berg wrote: > > On Wed, 2026-10-07 at 19:05 -0700, Kuniyuki Iwashima wrote: > > >=20 > > > Also, > > > I hope we could remove the long comment in __rtnl_unlock(). > >=20 > > So I sent my next PR, and we could therefore do that now. I also checke= d > > across the other places in the tree, and isotp_release() was the only > > one that seems to do something similar, keeping a socket pinned around > > rtnl_unlock(), but I don't think that could cause a similar problem. >=20 > If I got your claim correctly, I think we are solving this in this=20 > net-next PR too: >=20 > https://lore.kernel.org/linux-can/20261015015336.816543-8-mkl@pengutronix= .de/ I _think_ that's unrelated, but I might well not understand it correctly. I was looking at the rtnl_unlock() portion, where that could run a netdev todo item. Even with that change, you have rtnl_lock() lock_sock() ... rtnl_unlock() ... release_sock() which looks sufficiently similar to rtnl_lock() wiphy_lock() rtnl_unlock() ... wiphy_unlock() that my search flagged it, but isn't really the same anyway. But I'm not sure I understand the socket lock semantics and the socket notifier etc. well enough that I should be commenting on this at all :) johannes