linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH RESEND] dmaengine: ti-dma-crossbar: Fix error handling in ti_am335x_xbar_route

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <c0cc4abd-4000-4487-9837-e55c442c4d0d@kernel.org>
Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2025 12:52:31 +0100
From: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@...nel.org>
To: Ma Ke <make24@...as.ac.cn>, peter.ujfalusi@...il.com, vkoul@...nel.org
Cc: dmaengine@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
 akpm@...ux-foundation.org, stable@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH RESEND] dmaengine: ti-dma-crossbar: Fix error handling in
 ti_am335x_xbar_route_allocate

On 15/12/2025 02:42, Ma Ke wrote:
> ti_am335x_xbar_route_allocate() calls of_find_device_by_node() which
> increments the reference count of the platform device, but fails to
> call put_device() to decrement the reference count before returning.
> This could cause a reference count leak each time the function is
> called, preventing the platform device from being properly cleaned up
> and leading to memory leakage.
> 
> Add proper put_device() calls in all exit paths to fix the reference
> count imbalance.
> 
> Found by code review.
> 
> Cc: stable@...r.kernel.org
> Fixes: 42dbdcc6bf96 ("dmaengine: ti-dma-crossbar: Add support for crossbar on AM33xx/AM43xx")
> Signed-off-by: Ma Ke <make24@...as.ac.cn>
> ---
>  drivers/dma/ti/dma-crossbar.c | 24 ++++++++++++++++++------
>  1 file changed, 18 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
> 


Just a note, author sends and resends same patches without addressing
feedback. At least one case was very dubious or just incorrect code, and
author just ignored it and sent it again to hide the previous
discussion, so I suspect LLM generated content.

I did not review the code here, but please carefully review all patches
from this author before applying and simply do not trust that this looks
like a fix.

Best regards,
Krzysztof