[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20260116024435.347774-1-kuba@kernel.org>
Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2026 18:44:35 -0800
From: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
To: slark_xiao@....com
Cc: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
quic_qianyu@...cinc.com,
davem@...emloft.net,
loic.poulain@....qualcomm.com,
johannes@...solutions.net,
netdev@...r.kernel.org,
zaihan@...ealasia.net,
johan@...nel.org,
andrew+netdev@...n.ch,
edumazet@...gle.com,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
dnlplm@...il.com,
manivannan.sadhasivam@...aro.org,
pabeni@...hat.com,
mani@...nel.org,
ryazanov.s.a@...il.com
Subject: Re: [net-next,v7,3/8] net: wwan: core: split port creation and registration
This is an AI-generated review of your patch. The human sending this
email has considered the AI review valid, or at least plausible.
For local reproduction steps see https://netdev-ai.bots.linux.dev/ai-local.html
---
net: wwan: core: split port creation and registration
This patch splits the port creation function to prepare for upcoming GNSS
port type support. It separates device_register() into device_initialize()
and device_add(), and moves minor number allocation into the new
wwan_port_register_wwan() function.
> diff --git a/drivers/net/wwan/wwan_core.c b/drivers/net/wwan/wwan_core.c
> index 1da935e84008..1a9a77d597e6 100644
> --- a/drivers/net/wwan/wwan_core.c
> +++ b/drivers/net/wwan/wwan_core.c
> @@ -357,7 +357,8 @@ static void wwan_port_destroy(struct device *dev)
> {
> struct wwan_port *port = to_wwan_port(dev);
>
> - ida_free(&minors, MINOR(port->dev.devt));
> + if (dev->class == &wwan_class)
> + ida_free(&minors, MINOR(dev->devt));
> mutex_destroy(&port->data_lock);
> mutex_destroy(&port->ops_lock);
> kfree(port);
[ ... ]
> +/* Register a regular WWAN port device (e.g. AT, MBIM, etc.) */
> +static int wwan_port_register_wwan(struct wwan_port *port)
> +{
> + struct wwan_device *wwandev = to_wwan_dev(port->dev.parent);
> + char namefmt[0x20];
> + int minor, err;
> +
> + /* A port is exposed as character device, get a minor */
> + minor = ida_alloc_range(&minors, 0, WWAN_MAX_MINORS - 1, GFP_KERNEL);
> + if (minor < 0)
> + return minor;
> +
> + port->dev.class = &wwan_class;
> + port->dev.devt = MKDEV(wwan_major, minor);
[ ... ]
> + err = device_add(&port->dev);
> +
> + mutex_unlock(&wwan_register_lock);
> +
> + if (err) {
> + ida_free(&minors, minor);
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
When device_add() fails, this frees the minor. However, port->dev.class
was already set to wwan_class above, and port->dev.devt contains the minor
number. The caller (wwan_create_port) then calls put_device() which
triggers wwan_port_destroy(). Since dev->class == &wwan_class is true,
wwan_port_destroy() calls ida_free() again on the same minor.
Wouldn't this cause a double ida_free when device_add() fails? The call
chain is: wwan_port_register_wwan() fails -> ida_free(minor) -> return
error -> wwan_create_port() -> put_device() -> wwan_port_destroy() ->
ida_free(minor) again.
Maybe the class should be cleared on error before returning, or the
ida_free in the error path should be removed since wwan_port_destroy()
will handle it?
> + return err;
> + }
> +
> + dev_info(&wwandev->dev, "port %s attached\n", dev_name(&port->dev));
> +
> + return 0;
> +}
[ ... ]
> + device_initialize(&port->dev);
> +
> + err = wwan_port_register_wwan(port);
> if (err)
> goto error_put_device;
> +
> return port;
>
> error_put_device:
> + put_device(&port->dev);
--
pw-bot: cr
Powered by blists - more mailing lists