In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: net/mlx5e: Fix deadlocks between devlink and netdev instance locks In the mentioned "Fixes" commit, various work tasks triggering devlink health reporter recovery were switched to use netdev_trylock to protect against concurrent tear down of the channels being recovered. But this had the side effect of introducing potential deadlocks because of incorrect lock ordering. The correct lock order is described by the init flow: probe_one -> mlx5_init_one (acquires devlink lock) -> mlx5_init_one_devl_locked -> mlx5_register_device -> mlx5_rescan_drivers_locked -...-> mlx5e_probe -> _mlx5e_probe -> register_netdev (acquires rtnl lock) -> register_netdevice (acquires netdev lock) => devlink lock -> rtnl lock -> netdev lock. But in the current recovery flow, the order is wrong: mlx5e_tx_err_cqe_work (acquires netdev lock) -> mlx5e_reporter_tx_err_cqe -> mlx5e_health_report -> devlink_health_report (acquires devlink lock => bo...

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: net/mlx5e: Fix deadlocks between devlink and netdev instance locks In the mentioned "Fixes" commit, various work tasks triggering devlink health reporter recovery were switched to use netdev_trylock to protect against concurrent tear down of the channels being recovered. But this had the side effect of introducing potential deadlocks because of incorrect lock ordering. The correct lock order is described by the init flow: probe_one -> mlx5_init_one (acquires devlink lock) -> mlx5_init_one_devl_locked -> mlx5_register_device -> mlx5_rescan_drivers_locked -...-> mlx5e_probe -> _mlx5e_probe -> register_netdev (acquires rtnl lock) -> register_netdevice (acquires netdev lock) => devlink lock -> rtnl lock -> netdev lock. But in the current recovery flow, the order is wrong: mlx5e_tx_err_cqe_work (acquires netdev lock) -> mlx5e_reporter_tx_err_cqe -> mlx5e_health_report -> devlink_health_report (acquires devlink lock => bo...

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: net/mlx5e: Fix deadlocks between devlink and netdev instance locks In the mentioned "Fixes" commit, various work tasks triggering devlink health reporter recovery were switched to use netdev_trylock to protect against concurrent tear down of the channels being recovered. But this had the side effect of introducing potential deadlocks because of incorrect lock ordering. The correct lock order is described by the init flow: probe_one -> mlx5_init_one (acquires devlink lock) -> mlx5_init_one_devl_locked -> mlx5_register_device -> mlx5_rescan_drivers_locked -...-> mlx5e_probe -> _mlx5e_probe -> register_netdev (acquires rtnl lock) -> register_netdevice (acquires netdev lock) => devlink lock -> rtnl lock -> netdev lock. But in the current recovery flow, the order is wrong: mlx5e_tx_err_cqe_work (acquires netdev lock) -> mlx5e_reporter_tx_err_cqe -> mlx5e_health_report -> devlink_health_report (acquires devlink lock => b

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: n ...

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: net/mlx5e: Fix deadlocks between devlink and netdev instance locks In the mentioned "Fixes" commit, various work tasks triggering devlink health reporter recovery were switched to use netdev_trylock to protect against concurrent tear down of the channels being recovered. But this had the side effect of introducing potential deadlocks because of incorrect lock ordering. The correct lock order is described by the init flow: probe_one -> mlx5_init_one (acquires devlink lock) -> mlx5_init_one_devl_locked -> mlx5_register_device -> mlx5_rescan_drivers_locked -...-> mlx5e_probe -> _mlx5e_probe -> register_netdev (acquires rtnl lock) -> register_netdevice (acquires netdev lock) => devlink lock -> rtnl lock -> netdev lock. But in the current recovery flow, the order is wrong: mlx5e_tx_err_cqe_work (acquires netdev lock) -> mlx5e_reporter_tx_err_cqe -> mlx5e_health_report -> devlink_health_report (acquires devlink lock =...