On Mon, Nov 2, 2026 at 7:29 AM Paolo Abeni <[email protected]> wrote: > > On 11/2/26 00:16, Mina Almasry wrote: > > On Sun, Nov 1, 2026 at 3:01 PM <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > >> - [High] The dma_dev use-after-free this patch says it fixes can still > >> happen for RX bindings made on a virtual device that leases queues,... > >> > > > > I know about the issues with leased devices. That needs a bit of a > > rework, which I have done locally, and would like to send out as a > > follow up fix. > Will such follow-up rework the code touched by current patch/series? > how much? I'm under the impression that at least the fix for the issue > reported here would be quite overlapping. > > /P
I pushed the follow-up branch on top of v5 here so you can see the exact diff: https://github.com/mina/linux/compare/devmem-teardown-v4...devmem-lease-bind-map-dev (commits: https://github.com/mina/linux/commits/devmem-lease-bind-map-dev) There is some overlap (~55 lines of v5 touched across a 6-patch +262/-99 follow-up): it renames binding->dev/vdev to binding->map_dev/bind_dev, passes the net_device explicitly to net_devmem_lock_dev(), factors out net_devmem_close_rxqs(), and replaces the !rxq->lease / !netif_is_queue_leasee() skips in net_devmem_dev_unregister() and mp_dmabuf_devmem_uninstall(). I kept it separate only to keep this net fix smaller and easier to review, since the lease issue is pre-existing. Happy to either land v5 first and send those 6 patches right after, or fold them into a v6 if you prefer avoiding the churn. -- Thanks, Mina
