[PATCH] PCI/IOV: drop PF reference if max VF bus computation fails

[PATCH] PCI/IOV: drop PF reference if max VF bus computation fails

[Wentao Liang]

sriov_init() takes a reference on the PF found on the bus and stores it
in iov->dev.  The reference is normally released by sriov_release()
through sriov_disable().  But if compute_max_vf_buses() fails, the
error path clears dev->sriov and frees the iov without dropping that
reference, so the PF device refcount is leaked once per failed SR-IOV
initialisation.

Release the PF reference on that path before freeing the iov.

Fixes: ea9a8854161d ("PCI: Set SR-IOV NumVFs to zero after enumeration")
Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org
Assisted-by: DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash and OpenAI Codex
Signed-off-by: Wentao Liang <vulab@iscas.ac.cn>
---
 drivers/pci/iov.c | 2 ++
 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)

diff --git a/drivers/pci/iov.c b/drivers/pci/iov.c
index 9185934a900f..b7ab7e0f6fcb 100644
--- a/drivers/pci/iov.c
+++ b/drivers/pci/iov.c
@@ -880,6 +880,8 @@ static int sriov_init(struct pci_dev *dev, int pos)
 	return 0;
 
 fail_max_buses:
+	if (pdev)
+		pci_dev_put(pdev);
 	dev->sriov = NULL;
 	dev->is_physfn = 0;
 failed:
-- 
2.34.1

Re: [PATCH] PCI/IOV: drop PF reference if max VF bus computation fails

[Krzysztof Kozlowski]

On Tue, 03 Nov 2026 10:42:39 +0000, Wentao Liang wrote:
> sriov_init() takes a reference on the PF found on the bus and stores it
> in iov->dev.  The reference is normally released by sriov_release()
> through sriov_disable().  But if compute_max_vf_buses() fails, the
> error path clears dev->sriov and frees the iov without dropping that
> reference, so the PF device refcount is leaked once per failed SR-IOV
> initialisation.
> 
> Release the PF reference on that path before freeing the iov.
> 
> Fixes: ea9a8854161d ("PCI: Set SR-IOV NumVFs to zero after enumeration")
> Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org
> Assisted-by: DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash and OpenAI Codex
> Signed-off-by: Wentao Liang <vulab@iscas.ac.cn>
> ---
>  drivers/pci/iov.c | 2 ++
>  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
> 

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