Re: [PATCH 6.12.y/6.6.y/6.1.y/5.15.y/5.10.y 1-2/2] ipmi:ssif: shutdown race + kthread cleanup

[Corey Minyard <corey@minyard.net>]

On Sun, May 03, 2026 at 02:19:56PM -0400, Sasha Levin wrote:
> Hi Corey,
> 
> I queued the 2-patch series across 6.12.y / 6.6.y / 6.1.y / 5.15.y /
> 5.10.y but had to drop them all again before pushing to stable-queue.
> 
> Patch 2/2 (cherry-pick of upstream 75c486cb1bca, "ipmi:ssif: Clean up
> kthread on errors") has a real bug in upstream itself: in ssif_probe()'s
> out: label,
> 
> 	if (ssif_info->thread)
> 		kthread_stop(ssif_info->thread);
> 
> runs even when kthread_run() failed, in which case ssif_info->thread is
> an ERR_PTR rather than NULL, so kthread_stop() ends up being called on
> an error pointer. The check needs to be IS_ERR_OR_NULL(), or
> ssif_info->thread needs to be reset to NULL on the kthread_run() error
> path before goto out.
> 
> The same upstream bug propagates to all five LTS submissions, so I had
> to drop them all rather than just the older trees. Could you send a
> fixed version (an upstream follow-up that flips through the LTS trees
> would be ideal)?

There is already a fix for this queued in the next tree that I was about
to submit.  Fixing it here would add to the confusion.

> 
> For 5.15 and 5.10 specifically, I'd also like to fold in your standalone
> "ipmi:ssif: Fix a thread shutdown issue" follow-up
> (<20260501161407.1106914-1-corey@minyard.net> for 5.15,
> <20260501162131.1165570-1-corey@minyard.net> for 5.10) when you resend.
> Those branches lack the kthread_stop ERESTARTSYS behaviour that 6.1+
> has, and your follow-up addresses exactly that. A 3-patch series for
> 5.15/5.10 (plus the 2-patch series for 6.12/6.6/6.1) with the ERR_PTR
> fix folded in would let me requeue the whole set in one pass.

Ok, I'll fold that in to 5.10 and 5.15 as you request, that makes sense.

Can you add the 6.1/6.6/6.12 ones as they are and I'll submit the queue
to fix I have to Linus?

-corey

> 
> --
> Thanks,
> Sasha