dmaengine: fix use-after-free in dma_chan_put() and dma_release_channel()grafted

When dma_device_put() drops the last reference on chan->device->ref,
dma_device_release() runs and may free the dma_device along with its
channels.

dma_chan_put() then still reads chan->device->owner via
dma_chan_to_owner() for the trailing module_put(). KASAN catches it:

	slab-use-after-free in dma_chan_put+0x3e6/0x4c0
	Read of size 8 by task insmod/6319
	Freed by task 6319:
	  kfree+0x225/0x470
	  dma_chan_put+0x395/0x4c0
	  dmaengine_put+0xf8/0x160

Cache the module owner in dma_chan_put() before the put so the trailing
module_put() does not need chan->device.

Fixes: 8ad342a86359 ("dmaengine: Add reference counting to dma_device struct")
Suggested-by: Sashiko <sashiko-bot@kernel.org>
Link: https://sashiko.dev/#/patchset/20260518-dmaengine-kref-fix-v1-1-4d6125048fb7@amd.com
Reviewed-by: Frank Li <Frank.Li@nxp.com>
Reviewed-by: Logan Gunthorpe <logang@deltatee.com>
Signed-off-by: Shivank Garg <shivankg@amd.com>
Link: https://patch.msgid.link/20260822-dmaengine-kref-fix-v5-3-d4a4ee47d927@amd.com
Signed-off-by: Vinod Koul <vkoul@kernel.org>

1 files changed, 72 insertions, 0 deletions

diff --git a/Documentation/process/maintainer-devicetree.rst b/Documentation/process/maintainer-devicetree.rst
new file mode 100644
index 000000000..ecc3ed638
--- /dev/null
+++ b/Documentation/process/maintainer-devicetree.rst
@@ -0,0 +1,72 @@
+.. SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
+
+======================================
+Devicetree and Open Firmware Subsystem
+======================================
+
+Other Process Documents
+-----------------------
+
+Please see the documents in Documentation/devicetree/bindings/ for information
+on how to write proper Devicetree bindings and how to submit patches.
+
+Patch Review and Handling
+-------------------------
+
+Patches handled by Devicetree maintainers are processed differently depending
+on the patch type:
+
+1. Core OF driver code, e.g. drivers/of/:
+   patches are reviewed and applied by DT maintainers.
+
+2. Devicetree bindings:
+   patches are reviewed by DT maintainers, but should be applied by subsystem
+   maintainers except in certain cases.  See also *For kernel maintainers* in
+   Documentation/devicetree/bindings/submitting-patches.rst.
+
+3. DTS and drivers:
+   DT maintainers might provide comments, but review is generally not expected.
+   DTS must pass schema checks (dtbs_check) or at least do not add any
+   new warnings.
+
+Patchwork
+~~~~~~~~~
+
+Devicetree maintainers review patches using Patchwork, so the current status of
+a patch can be checked there. For typical driver submissions, Patchwork
+receives the entire patch set, but only a few patches are usually Devicetree
+bindings that are reviewed by DT maintainers.
+
+Explanation of Patchwork statuses:
+
+ - **New**: Not yet processed by the automation toolset.
+ - **Needs ACK**: Waiting for review by DT maintainers.
+ - **Handled Elsewhere**: Non-DT patch; not being reviewed here.
+ - **RFC**: Patch was likely ignored because it was an incomplete RFC.
+ - **Changes Requested**: Patch was reviewed and DT maintainers expect changes.
+ - **Accepted**: Patch was reviewed and applied by DT maintainers to their tree.
+ - **Not Applicable**: Patch was reviewed and is likely in good shape, with a
+   *Reviewed-by* or *Acked-by* tag provided, but DT maintainers expect someone
+   else to apply it.
+
+Patch Re-review and Pinging
+~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
+
+Due to the high volume of email traffic, Devicetree maintainers do not read
+every email they receive and instead rely on Patchwork during the review
+process. They also often skip patches that have already been reviewed.
+
+As a result, maintainers might miss:
+
+1. Questions about already reviewed patches.
+2. Pings, for example when a patch has been reviewed by DT maintainers but has
+   not been picked up by subsystem maintainers.
+
+Such cases can be addressed by:
+
+1. Pinging DT maintainers on the IRC channel.
+2. Dropping the DT maintainer’s *Acked-by* or *Reviewed-by* tag when sending a new
+   version of the patch set, together with an explanation in the patch
+   changelog describing why the tag was removed and what is expected from DT
+   maintainers.
+