[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <7557d32c-c5e1-4e73-aefe-23ebf4bea708@kernel.org>
Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2025 09:30:12 +0100
From: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@...nel.org>
To: Ma Ke <make24@...as.ac.cn>, davem@...emloft.net, edumazet@...gle.com,
kuba@...nel.org, pabeni@...hat.com, horms@...nel.org,
linville@...driver.com, aloisio.almeida@...nbossa.org,
johannes@...solutions.net, lauro.venancio@...nbossa.org,
sameo@...ux.intel.com
Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, stable@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] NFC: Fix error handling in nfc_genl_dump_targets
On 24/11/2025 09:24, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On 21/11/2025 03:27, Ma Ke wrote:
>> nfc_genl_dump_targets() increments the device reference count via
>
> Only in some cases, but you drop it unconditionally.
>
>> nfc_get_device() but fails to decrement it properly. nfc_get_device()
>> calls class_find_device() which internally calls get_device() to
>> increment the reference count. No corresponding put_device() is made
>> to decrement the reference count.
>>
>> Add proper reference count decrementing using nfc_put_device() when
>> the dump operation completes or encounters an error, ensuring balanced
>> reference counting.
>>
>> Found by code review.
>
> Drop, there is no point nor need to say that humans did the work. This
> actually rather suggests you used LLM and disguise your finding as "code
> review".
>
> No, LLM is not code review.
Looks like LLM.
>
>>
>> Cc: stable@...r.kernel.org
>> Fixes: 4d12b8b129f1 ("NFC: add nfc generic netlink interface")
>> Signed-off-by: Ma Ke <make24@...as.ac.cn>
>> ---
>> net/nfc/netlink.c | 5 +++++
>> 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/net/nfc/netlink.c b/net/nfc/netlink.c
>> index a18e2c503da6..9ae138ee91dd 100644
>> --- a/net/nfc/netlink.c
>> +++ b/net/nfc/netlink.c
>> @@ -159,6 +159,11 @@ static int nfc_genl_dump_targets(struct sk_buff *skb,
>>
>> cb->args[0] = i;
>>
>> + if (rc < 0 || i >= dev->n_targets) {
>> + nfc_put_device(dev);
>> + cb->args[1] = 0;
>
> Did you test it?
I am pretty sure this is double put and thus bug. There is put in done().
Best regards,
Krzysztof
Powered by blists - more mailing lists