[PATCH] RDMA/hfi1: Free the trap send buffer when no address handle is available

[PATCH] RDMA/hfi1: Free the trap send buffer when no address handle is available

[Wentao Liang]

send_trap() allocates a MAD send buffer before checking the subnet
manager address handle. If creating that handle fails, or if the subnet
manager LID is permissive, it unlocks and returns without submitting or
freeing the buffer. No send completion can release an unsubmitted MAD.

Free the send buffer after releasing the lock on both early returns,
matching the other failures after ib_create_send_mad().

Fixes: bf90aadd630c ("IB/hfi1: Send MAD traps until repressed")
Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org
Assisted-by: DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash and OpenAI Codex
Signed-off-by: Wentao Liang <vulab@iscas.ac.cn>
---
 drivers/infiniband/hw/hfi1/mad.c | 2 ++
 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)

diff --git a/drivers/infiniband/hw/hfi1/mad.c b/drivers/infiniband/hw/hfi1/mad.c
index 585f1d99b91b..dbc2dd55689e 100644
--- a/drivers/infiniband/hw/hfi1/mad.c
+++ b/drivers/infiniband/hw/hfi1/mad.c
@@ -335,12 +335,14 @@ static void send_trap(struct hfi1_ibport *ibp, struct trap_node *trap)
 			ah = hfi1_create_qp0_ah(ibp, ibp->rvp.sm_lid);
 			if (IS_ERR(ah)) {
 				spin_unlock_irqrestore(&ibp->rvp.lock, flags);
+				ib_free_send_mad(send_buf);
 				return;
 			}
 			send_buf->ah = ah;
 			ibp->rvp.sm_ah = ibah_to_rvtah(ah);
 		} else {
 			spin_unlock_irqrestore(&ibp->rvp.lock, flags);
+			ib_free_send_mad(send_buf);
 			return;
 		}
 	} else {
-- 
2.34.1

Re: [PATCH] RDMA/hfi1: Free the trap send buffer when no address handle is available

[Krzysztof Kozlowski]

On Tue, 03 Nov 2026 08:19:15 +0000, Wentao Liang wrote:
> send_trap() allocates a MAD send buffer before checking the subnet
> manager address handle. If creating that handle fails, or if the subnet
> manager LID is permissive, it unlocks and returns without submitting or
> freeing the buffer. No send completion can release an unsubmitted MAD.
> 
> Free the send buffer after releasing the lock on both early returns,
> matching the other failures after ib_create_send_mad().
> 
> Fixes: bf90aadd630c ("IB/hfi1: Send MAD traps until repressed")
> Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org
> Assisted-by: DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash and OpenAI Codex
> Signed-off-by: Wentao Liang <vulab@iscas.ac.cn>
> ---
>  drivers/infiniband/hw/hfi1/mad.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

Re: [PATCH] RDMA/hfi1: Free the trap send buffer when no address handle is available

[Leon Romanovsky]

On Tue, Nov 03, 2026 at 10:21:38AM +0100, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> 
> On Tue, 03 Nov 2026 08:19:15 +0000, Wentao Liang wrote:
> > send_trap() allocates a MAD send buffer before checking the subnet
> > manager address handle. If creating that handle fails, or if the subnet
> > manager LID is permissive, it unlocks and returns without submitting or
> > freeing the buffer. No send completion can release an unsubmitted MAD.
> > 
> > Free the send buffer after releasing the lock on both early returns,
> > matching the other failures after ib_create_send_mad().
> > 
> > Fixes: bf90aadd630c ("IB/hfi1: Send MAD traps until repressed")
> > Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org
> > Assisted-by: DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash and OpenAI Codex
> > Signed-off-by: Wentao Liang <vulab@iscas.ac.cn>
> > ---
> >  drivers/infiniband/hw/hfi1/mad.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.

Thanks, we will simply drop this patch. It is not worth to review it.

Thanks