[PATCH] igb: disable the PCI device when resume fails

[PATCH] igb: disable the PCI device when resume fails

[Wentao Liang]

If igb_init_interrupt_scheme() or __igb_open() fails after
pci_enable_device_mem() succeeded, __igb_resume() returns the error
without calling pci_disable_device(). The PCI enable count stays
elevated and the device remains enabled even though the driver failed
to resume it.

Disable the device on both failure paths.

Fixes: 9d5c824399de ("igb: PCI-Express 82575 Gigabit Ethernet driver")
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/intel/igb/igb_main.c | 4 ++++
 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+)

diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/igb/igb_main.c b/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/igb/igb_main.c
index d4a897a8c82c..853bc99a1011 100644
--- a/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/igb/igb_main.c
+++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/igb/igb_main.c
@@ -9621,6 +9621,7 @@ static int __igb_resume(struct device *dev, bool rpm)
 
 	if (igb_init_interrupt_scheme(adapter, true)) {
 		dev_err(&pdev->dev, "Unable to allocate memory for queues\n");
+		pci_disable_device(pdev);
 		return -ENOMEM;
 	}
 
@@ -9647,6 +9648,9 @@ static int __igb_resume(struct device *dev, bool rpm)
 	if (!rpm)
 		rtnl_unlock();
 
+	if (err)
+		pci_disable_device(pdev);
+
 	return err;
 }
 
-- 
2.34.1

Re: [PATCH] igb: disable the PCI device when resume fails

[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.