Re: Patch "nvme-auth: unlock mutex in one place only" has been added to the 6.1-stable tree

Re: Patch "nvme-auth: unlock mutex in one place only" has been added to the 6.1-stable tree

[Mark O'Donovan]

This is wrong. This patch should not be applied to 6.1

Mark

On 16/12/2023 21:05, Sasha Levin wrote:
> This is a note to let you know that I've just added the patch titled
> 
>      nvme-auth: unlock mutex in one place only
> 
> to the 6.1-stable tree which can be found at:
>      http://www.kernel.org/git/?p=linux/kernel/git/stable/stable-queue.git;a=summary
> 
> The filename of the patch is:
>       nvme-auth-unlock-mutex-in-one-place-only.patch
> and it can be found in the queue-6.1 subdirectory.
> 
> If you, or anyone else, feels it should not be added to the stable tree,
> please let <stable@vger.kernel.org> know about it.
> 
> 
> 
> commit e85d53548a98fef7933fc10ff03f588037cafaf9
> Author: Mark O'Donovan <shiftee@posteo.net>
> Date:   Wed Oct 11 08:45:11 2023 +0000
> 
>      nvme-auth: unlock mutex in one place only
>      
>      [ Upstream commit 616add70bfdc0274a253e84fc78155c27aacde91 ]
>      
>      Signed-off-by: Mark O'Donovan <shiftee@posteo.net>
>      Reviewed-by: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>
>      Reviewed-by: Sagi Grimberg <sagi@grimberg.me>
>      Reviewed-by: Hannes Reinecke <hare@suse.de>
>      Signed-off-by: Keith Busch <kbusch@kernel.org>
>      Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin <sashal@kernel.org>
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/nvme/host/auth.c b/drivers/nvme/host/auth.c
> index 9dfd3d0293054..7c9dfb420c464 100644
> --- a/drivers/nvme/host/auth.c
> +++ b/drivers/nvme/host/auth.c
> @@ -758,6 +758,7 @@ static void nvme_queue_auth_work(struct work_struct *work)
>   	dev_dbg(ctrl->device, "%s: qid %d host response\n",
>   		__func__, chap->qid);
>   	ret = nvme_auth_dhchap_setup_host_response(ctrl, chap);
> +	mutex_unlock(&ctrl->dhchap_auth_mutex);
>   	if (ret) {
>   		chap->error = ret;
>   		goto fail2;

Re: Patch "nvme-auth: unlock mutex in one place only" has been added to the 6.1-stable tree

[Greg KH]

On Sat, Dec 16, 2023 at 09:33:50PM +0000, Mark O'Donovan wrote:
> This is wrong. This patch should not be applied to 6.1

But 6.6.y is ok?

Why one and not both?

Actually why is this really needed?  I'll drop it from both trees now...

thanks,

greg k-h