[PATCH] net: fman: drop the FMan device reference after port probe

[PATCH] net: fman: drop the FMan device reference after port probe

[Wentao Liang]

fman_port_probe() looks up the parent FMan platform device with
of_find_device_by_node(), which takes a reference on the embedded
struct device.  The reference is released on the error paths, but not
after a successful probe, and the __devm_request_region() failure path
jumps directly to freeing the port.

As a result the reference is never dropped.  Put the FMan device and
the port node before returning success, and route the failed region
request through the existing cleanup labels as well.

Fixes: 18a6c85fcc78 ("fsl/fman: Add FMan Port Support")
Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org
Assisted-by: DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash and OpenAI Codex
Signed-off-by: Wentao Liang <vulab@iscas.ac.cn>
---
 drivers/net/ethernet/freescale/fman/fman_port.c | 7 +++----
 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/freescale/fman/fman_port.c b/drivers/net/ethernet/freescale/fman/fman_port.c
index 1b8fef69114e..faf1e35399cd 100644
--- a/drivers/net/ethernet/freescale/fman/fman_port.c
+++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/freescale/fman/fman_port.c
@@ -1850,15 +1850,13 @@ static int fman_port_probe(struct platform_device *of_dev)
 
 	port->dts_params.fman = fman;
 
-	of_node_put(port_node);
-
 	dev_res = __devm_request_region(port->dev, &res, res.start,
 					resource_size(&res), "fman-port");
 	if (!dev_res) {
 		dev_err(port->dev, "%s: __devm_request_region() failed\n",
 			__func__);
 		err = -EINVAL;
-		goto free_port;
+		goto put_device;
 	}
 
 	port->dts_params.base_addr = devm_ioremap(port->dev, res.start,
@@ -1868,13 +1866,14 @@ static int fman_port_probe(struct platform_device *of_dev)
 
 	dev_set_drvdata(&of_dev->dev, port);
 
+	of_node_put(port_node);
+	put_device(&fm_pdev->dev);
 	return 0;
 
 put_device:
 	put_device(&fm_pdev->dev);
 return_err:
 	of_node_put(port_node);
-free_port:
 	kfree(port);
 	return err;
 }
-- 
2.34.1

Re: [PATCH] net: fman: drop the FMan device reference after port probe

[netdev-bot+sinfo]

Hi!

This is an automated message. This series looks like a fix, but its
commit messages seem to be missing some information:

 - How the issue was discovered, e.g. hit in production, hit during
   development, syzbot report, manual code inspection, LLM or static
   analysis tool scan.

 - Whether the issue was actually triggered, or is only theoretical
   (e.g. found by code inspection). If it was triggered please include
   the symptoms, like the stack trace or error messages.

 - What hardware the change was tested on. For driver fixes please
   mention the device (and if relevant firmware version) used for
   testing, or say that the change was not tested on real hardware.

Please do not repost the series just to address the above. Instead,
reply to this email with the missing information, so that reviewers
can take it into account. If the series needs another revision for
other reasons, please include the information in the commit messages
then.

The evaluation is done by an LLM so it may be wrong, if you think
that is the case please reply and explain.

Re: [PATCH] net: fman: drop the FMan device reference after port probe

[Krzysztof Kozlowski]

On Tue, 03 Nov 2026 10:05:32 +0000, Wentao Liang wrote:
> fman_port_probe() looks up the parent FMan platform device with
> of_find_device_by_node(), which takes a reference on the embedded
> struct device.  The reference is released on the error paths, but not
> after a successful probe, and the __devm_request_region() failure path
> jumps directly to freeing the port.
> 
> As a result the reference is never dropped.  Put the FMan device and
> the port node before returning success, and route the failed region
> request through the existing cleanup labels as well.
> 
> Fixes: 18a6c85fcc78 ("fsl/fman: Add FMan Port Support")
> Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org
> Assisted-by: DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash and OpenAI Codex
> Signed-off-by: Wentao Liang <vulab@iscas.ac.cn>
> ---
>  drivers/net/ethernet/freescale/fman/fman_port.c | 7 +++----
>  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> 



Multiple things here:
1. Your team ignored completely previous feedback. Multiple times.

2. You use multiple identities with this email address, thus I doubt that we
   speak with an actual person.

3. Your bot does not even bother running checkpatch, right?

4. Nothing of this was reproduced nor tested.

5. Finally, the same feedback:
You sent multiple independent patches, to multiple independent
subsystems. The amount of these patches clearly suggest this was
AI generated and most likely not tested.

More importantly, you sent all this work without properly organizing
relevant patches into patchsets. This makes reviewing difficult
and might cause multiple reviewers to address the same issue.
Replying to the entire set is impossible and requires handling each
patch independently, instead of applying or discarding the set.
Maintainers also won't see the bigger picture of your work. Quite
worrying.

This is on the verge of hostile patch: bomb us with so many
contributions, we won't be able to handle them in efficient manner,
like responding ONCE to ask you to slow down.  Considering all this
is untested and LLM generated, I have even more doubts whether this
should be considered for review.

Please read kernel documentation BEFORE posting more work. It will
explain you how to identify subsystems, how to organize your work per
subsystem (so a patchset grouping multiple patches with a short cover
letter), how to document the issue discovery method and what was
or was not tested.

Best regards,
Krzysztof