Re: [PATCH net v2] dpll: fix NULL deref in dpll_device_ops() during teardown race

[Matthieu Baerts]

Hi Petr,

On 13/08/2026 16:08, Petr Oros wrote:
> When the last owner of a dpll device unregisters while a foreign driver
> still holds a pin on it via dpll_pin_on_pin_register(), the dpll object
> stays alive with an empty registration list. A pin notification queued
> before the unregister (e.g. ice reacting to zl3073x_i2c removal) then
> walks pin->dpll_refs into dpll_device_ops(), which trips the WARN_ON and
> dereferences the missing registration. dpll_lock cannot help because the
> notification work was queued before the unregistering driver took the
> lock.
> 
> Treat the empty registration list as a legitimate transient state. Make
> dpll_priv() and dpll_device_ops() return NULL in that case and make
> every pin netlink path that resolves a device from a pin skip such
> dplls. dpll_cmd_pin_get_one() picks a ref with a live registration and
> returns -ENODEV when there is none, the pin dumpit skips such a pin
> instead of aborting the dump, dpll_msg_add_pin_dplls() and the
> frequency, esync, reference sync and phase adjust set paths skip dead
> refs, and dpll_pin_parent_device_set() validates the parent with
> dpll_device_get_by_id(). dpll_pin_register() is the last caller that
> dereferenced the device ops without a check, so move its frequency
> monitor validation under dpll_lock and tolerate a missing registration
> there as well.
> 
> The empty registration list is equivalent to a cleared DPLL_REGISTERED
> mark, both transitions happen under dpll_lock in dpll_device_register()
> and dpll_device_unregister(). A pin notification for a pin whose dplls
> are all gone is now dropped with -ENODEV instead of crashing, all
> callers in the core ignore that return value.
Thank you for the patch. When merging net into net-next, it looks like
it creates a lot of conflicts, mainly with commit 84e85c325e5e ("dpll:
use pin owner's dpll ref for pin-level attribute setting").

Because the logic seems quite different now, do you mind providing
instructions on how to resolve these conflicts, please? A 3-way patch
and/or rerere artifacts could also help.

Cheers,
Matt
-- 
Sponsored by the NGI0 Core fund.