From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtp.kernel.org (aws-us-west-2-korg-mail-alma10-1.taild15c8.ts.net [100.103.45.18]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5819D42C518; Fri, 9 Oct 2026 06:10:18 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=100.103.45.18 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1791526221; cv=none; b=SZvXwhQQ3YlhgaNyrfK23favSUBtCq452dAATk3RnQn3IBbQcrCI4GY78d07f01lmtzPlm8s0pN3HHaSCLQuJF9ebPA20iDz9UuhP3Y+DuGOUmDf1pNax8xVsKyC8FADDwh9Ssf1gmYHvRNlCednlHsonNEYYLtIU8kXNmB29U0= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1791526221; c=relaxed/simple; bh=flrZtGuBWN5uhPpVz0flFxAvlWbkl/ZkK9l7vI322/s=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=YU1FNurFTLAnJztx4QOjLAFlAqkSgK86WDJ7EKjHs/dhN9DnRJvrDj5xdeWxwTFRkjaLbgPvfrkfKdWBoaN9pwCwOir0xKHBgPx56MlVaiTR/fqBPBft5A5PimgPtisWMFO8um8zCFOENwT+9GvIMNS4nw9K2VkZVEHDekAcyBE= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b=ItDXhXo2; arc=none smtp.client-ip=100.103.45.18 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b="ItDXhXo2" Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id E04D71F000FF; Fri, 9 Oct 2026 06:10:17 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=kernel.org; s=k20260515; t=1791526218; bh=EKOWnKBJbJXeo8x7ZpRmGUBbXlEBT0+pIRkZH0GNbaw=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To; b=ItDXhXo2lnHxe4Ty/4W3UyneDlSvPXkqY1slCpv+/7L44f/H4MflyLcIPg1F0NZL1 WxWCTDpohl1nagM2Mos1gx+t5J9XCO8EFZUQ449XxQrFF9mkSXJsscKKmdbAdguvWA MQr75gWIvkmf7QtGuytNbx24zzZh0LgqxMvNHjTw2dPcyl/QaBLztME9BD5ZbtnIQt Ch/4lZtWUQ2c8qAll6JMREHTy8zt3oRzdQXcIb2A1FtH39mJWx9mR76qQorM5G0Ro9 uI4WIYQYoQ1A4IuEgTxOymxp0leN25nseGB8cen3v6KvCzEEx1pZN/sOp/WbGcjOnB p2J63HhwyivYA== Date: Fri, 9 Oct 2026 08:10:16 +0200 From: Krzysztof Kozlowski To: Haotian Zhang Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, iommu@lists.linux.dev, linux-samsung-soc@vger.kernel.org, Marek Szyprowski , Will Deacon , Alim Akhtar , Peter Griffin , Robin Murphy , Joerg Roedel Subject: Re: [PATCH] iommu/exynos: fix NULL pointer dereference on device_link_add() failure Message-ID: <20261009-refreshing-squirrel-from-hyperborea-ea10de@quoll> References: <20261009034539.3073100-1-vulab@iscas.ac.cn> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20261009034539.3073100-1-vulab@iscas.ac.cn> On Fri, 09 Oct 2026 11:45:39 +0800, Haotian Zhang wrote: > exynos_iommu_probe_device() stores the result of device_link_add() in > data->link without checking it for failure, although device_link_add() > returns NULL when the supplier is not PM initialized, on a dependency > cycle or on allocation failure. exynos_iommu_release_device() then calls > device_link_del() on that entry unconditionally, and device_link_del() > dereferences link->flags, so a NULL data->link causes a NULL pointer > dereference when the device is released. > > Check the returned device link for NULL, unwind the links that were > already created and fail the probe instead. > > Fixes: 7a974b29fe5d ("iommu/exynos: Rework runtime PM links management") > Assisted-by: DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash > Signed-off-by: Haotian Zhang > --- > drivers/iommu/exynos-iommu.c | 14 +++++++++++++- > 1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > Multiple things here: 1. Your team ignored completely previous feedback. 2. You use multiple identities with this email, thus I actually doubt we speak with actual person. 3. Finally, 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 usage of LLM and how what you should not do if this was posted in a good faith. Best regards, Krzysztof