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

slimbus: qcom-ngd-ctrl: Avoid ABBA on tx_lock/ctrl->lock

During the SSR/PDR down notification the tx_lock is taken with the
intent to provide synchronization with active DMA transfers.

But during this period qcom_slim_ngd_down() is invoked, which ends up in
slim_report_absent(), which takes the slim_controller lock. In multiple
other codepaths these two locks are taken in the opposite order (i.e.
slim_controller then tx_lock).

The result is a lockdep splat, and a possible deadlock:

  rprocctl/449 is trying to acquire lock:
  ffff00009793e620 (&ctrl->lock){+.+.}-{4:4}, at: slim_report_absent (drivers/slimbus/core.c:322) slimbus

  but task is already holding lock:
  ffff00009793fb50 (&ctrl->tx_lock){+.+.}-{4:4}, at: qcom_slim_ngd_ssr_pdr_notify (drivers/slimbus/qcom-ngd-ctrl.c:1475) slim_qcom_ngd_ctrl

  which lock already depends on the new lock.

  Possible unsafe locking scenario:

        CPU0                    CPU1
        ----                    ----
   lock(&ctrl->tx_lock);
                                lock(&ctrl->lock);
                                lock(&ctrl->tx_lock);
   lock(&ctrl->lock);

The assumption is that the comment refers to the desire to not call
qcom_slim_ngd_exit_dma() while we have an ongoing DMA TX transaction.
But any such transaction is initiated and completed within a single
qcom_slim_ngd_xfer_msg().

Prior to calling qcom_slim_ngd_exit_dma() the slim_controller is torn
down, all child devices are notified that the slimbus is gone and the
child devices are removed.

Stop taking the tx_lock in qcom_slim_ngd_ssr_pdr_notify() to avoid the
deadlock.