[PATCH] platform/x86: simatic-ipc: fix platform device leak on registration failure

[PATCH] platform/x86: simatic-ipc: fix platform device leak on registration failure

[Guangshuo Li]

register_platform_devices() creates multiple platform devices using
platform_device_register_data(), but returns directly when a later
platform device registration fails.

If LED or watchdog platform device registration fails, previously
registered platform devices are left registered. Since module init
failure does not invoke the module exit cleanup path, these platform
devices remain allocated and their backing platform_object memory is
leaked.

Unregister successfully created platform devices on registration failure
paths to restore the missing cleanup.

The issue was identified by a static analysis tool I developed and
confirmed by manual review.

Fixes: dd123e62bded ("platform/x86: simatic-ipc: add main driver for Siemens devices")
Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org
Signed-off-by: Guangshuo Li <lgs201920130244@gmail.com>
---
 drivers/platform/x86/siemens/simatic-ipc.c | 40 ++++++++++++++++++----
 1 file changed, 34 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/platform/x86/siemens/simatic-ipc.c b/drivers/platform/x86/siemens/simatic-ipc.c
index 7039874d8f11..9bf8b2d8248c 100644
--- a/drivers/platform/x86/siemens/simatic-ipc.c
+++ b/drivers/platform/x86/siemens/simatic-ipc.c
@@ -92,6 +92,7 @@ static int register_platform_devices(u32 station_id)
 	u8 wdtmode = SIMATIC_IPC_DEVICE_NONE;
 	u8 battmode = SIMATIC_IPC_DEVICE_NONE;
 	char *pdevname;
+	int ret;
 	int i;
 
 	for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(device_modes); i++) {
@@ -118,8 +119,11 @@ static int register_platform_devices(u32 station_id)
 			platform_device_register_data(NULL, pdevname,
 				PLATFORM_DEVID_NONE, &platform_data,
 				sizeof(struct simatic_ipc_platform));
-		if (IS_ERR(ipc_batt_platform_device))
-			return PTR_ERR(ipc_batt_platform_device);
+		if (IS_ERR(ipc_batt_platform_device)) {
+			ret = PTR_ERR(ipc_batt_platform_device);
+			ipc_batt_platform_device = NULL;
+			goto err_unregister;
+		}
 
 		pr_debug("device=%s created\n",
 			 ipc_batt_platform_device->name);
@@ -139,8 +143,11 @@ static int register_platform_devices(u32 station_id)
 				pdevname, PLATFORM_DEVID_NONE,
 				&platform_data,
 				sizeof(struct simatic_ipc_platform));
-		if (IS_ERR(ipc_led_platform_device))
-			return PTR_ERR(ipc_led_platform_device);
+		if (IS_ERR(ipc_led_platform_device)) {
+			ret = PTR_ERR(ipc_led_platform_device);
+			ipc_led_platform_device = NULL;
+			goto err_unregister;
+		}
 
 		pr_debug("device=%s created\n",
 			 ipc_led_platform_device->name);
@@ -153,8 +160,11 @@ static int register_platform_devices(u32 station_id)
 				KBUILD_MODNAME "_wdt", PLATFORM_DEVID_NONE,
 				&platform_data,
 				sizeof(struct simatic_ipc_platform));
-		if (IS_ERR(ipc_wdt_platform_device))
-			return PTR_ERR(ipc_wdt_platform_device);
+		if (IS_ERR(ipc_wdt_platform_device)) {
+			ret = PTR_ERR(ipc_wdt_platform_device);
+			ipc_wdt_platform_device = NULL;
+			goto err_unregister;
+		}
 
 		pr_debug("device=%s created\n",
 			 ipc_wdt_platform_device->name);
@@ -169,6 +179,24 @@ static int register_platform_devices(u32 station_id)
 	}
 
 	return 0;
+
+err_unregister:
+	if (ipc_wdt_platform_device) {
+		platform_device_unregister(ipc_wdt_platform_device);
+		ipc_wdt_platform_device = NULL;
+	}
+
+	if (ipc_led_platform_device) {
+		platform_device_unregister(ipc_led_platform_device);
+		ipc_led_platform_device = NULL;
+	}
+
+	if (ipc_batt_platform_device) {
+		platform_device_unregister(ipc_batt_platform_device);
+		ipc_batt_platform_device = NULL;
+	}
+
+	return ret;
 }
 
 static void request_additional_modules(u32 station_id)
-- 
2.43.0

Re: [PATCH] platform/x86: simatic-ipc: fix platform device leak on registration failure

[Markus Elfring]

…
> +++ b/drivers/platform/x86/siemens/simatic-ipc.c
…
> @@ -118,8 +119,11 @@ static int register_platform_devices(u32 station_id)
>  			platform_device_register_data(NULL, pdevname,
>  				PLATFORM_DEVID_NONE, &platform_data,
>  				sizeof(struct simatic_ipc_platform));
> -		if (IS_ERR(ipc_batt_platform_device))
> -			return PTR_ERR(ipc_batt_platform_device);
> +		if (IS_ERR(ipc_batt_platform_device)) {
> +			ret = PTR_ERR(ipc_batt_platform_device);
> +			ipc_batt_platform_device = NULL;
> +			goto err_unregister;
> +		}
…

How do you think about to avoid duplicate checks and variable resets
in such a function implementation?

Regards,
Markus

Re: [PATCH] platform/x86: simatic-ipc: fix platform device leak on registration failure

[krzk]

On Mon, 21 Sep 2026 15:53:12 +0800, Guangshuo Li wrote:
> register_platform_devices() creates multiple platform devices using
> platform_device_register_data(), but returns directly when a later
> platform device registration fails.
> 
> If LED or watchdog platform device registration fails, previously
> registered platform devices are left registered. Since module init
> failure does not invoke the module exit cleanup path, these platform
> devices remain allocated and their backing platform_object memory is
> leaked.
> 
> Unregister successfully created platform devices on registration failure
> paths to restore the missing cleanup.
> 
> The issue was identified by a static analysis tool I developed and
> confirmed by manual review.
> 
> Fixes: dd123e62bded ("platform/x86: simatic-ipc: add main driver for Siemens devices")
> Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org
> Signed-off-by: Guangshuo Li <lgs201920130244@gmail.com>
> ---
>  drivers/platform/x86/siemens/simatic-ipc.c | 40 ++++++++++++++++++----
>  1 file changed, 34 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
> 


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, how to document usage of LLM and how what you should not
do if this was posted in a good faith.

Best regards,
Krzysztof

Re: [PATCH] platform/x86: simatic-ipc: fix platform device leak on registration failure

[krzk]

On Mon, 21 Sep 2026 15:53:12 +0800, Guangshuo Li wrote:
> register_platform_devices() creates multiple platform devices using
> platform_device_register_data(), but returns directly when a later
> platform device registration fails.
> 
> If LED or watchdog platform device registration fails, previously
> registered platform devices are left registered. Since module init
> failure does not invoke the module exit cleanup path, these platform
> devices remain allocated and their backing platform_object memory is
> leaked.
> 
> Unregister successfully created platform devices on registration failure
> paths to restore the missing cleanup.
> 
> The issue was identified by a static analysis tool I developed and
> confirmed by manual review.
> 
> Fixes: dd123e62bded ("platform/x86: simatic-ipc: add main driver for Siemens devices")
> Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org
> Signed-off-by: Guangshuo Li <lgs201920130244@gmail.com>
> ---
>  drivers/platform/x86/siemens/simatic-ipc.c | 40 ++++++++++++++++++----
>  1 file changed, 34 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
> 


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, how to document usage of LLM and how what you should not
do if this was posted in a good faith.

Best regards,
Krzysztof

Re: [PATCH] platform/x86: simatic-ipc: fix platform device leak on registration failure

[Guangshuo Li]

Hi Krzysztof,

Thank you for your feedback.

On Mon, 21 Sept 2026 at 23:05, <krzk@kernel.org> wrote:
>
>
> On Mon, 21 Sep 2026 15:53:12 +0800, Guangshuo Li wrote:
> > register_platform_devices() creates multiple platform devices using
> > platform_device_register_data(), but returns directly when a later
> > platform device registration fails.
> >
> > If LED or watchdog platform device registration fails, previously
> > registered platform devices are left registered. Since module init
> > failure does not invoke the module exit cleanup path, these platform
> > devices remain allocated and their backing platform_object memory is
> > leaked.
> >
> > Unregister successfully created platform devices on registration failure
> > paths to restore the missing cleanup.
> >
> > The issue was identified by a static analysis tool I developed and
> > confirmed by manual review.
> >
> > Fixes: dd123e62bded ("platform/x86: simatic-ipc: add main driver for Siemens devices")
> > Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org
> > Signed-off-by: Guangshuo Li <lgs201920130244@gmail.com>
> > ---
> >  drivers/platform/x86/siemens/simatic-ipc.c | 40 ++++++++++++++++++----
> >  1 file changed, 34 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
> >
>
>
> 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, how to document usage of LLM and how what you should not
> do if this was posted in a good faith.
>
> Best regards,
> Krzysztof
>
>
>

I would like to clarify that these patches were manually reviewed and
audited by us; they were not simply generated and submitted by an LLM.
However, I understand why the recent submission pattern may have given
that impression. We sent too many patches in a short period of time,
and we also failed to respond to some discussions in a timely manner,
which made the situation look worse.

Many of the recent patches, especially the v2 revisions, are
corrections and improvements based on previous review feedback rather
than completely new untested changes. That said, we recognize that the
way we submitted them increased the burden on maintainers and
reviewers.

We apologize for the pressure this caused to the community. We will be
more careful about organizing patches by subsystem, preparing proper
patchsets, and following the kernel contribution guidelines before
sending future work.

Thank you again for pointing this out.

Best regards,
Guangshuo

Re: [PATCH] platform/x86: simatic-ipc: fix platform device leak on registration failure

[Guangshuo Li]

Hi Markus,

Thanks for the suggestion.

On Mon, 21 Sept 2026 at 18:10, Markus Elfring <Markus.Elfring@web.de> wrote:
>
> …
> > +++ b/drivers/platform/x86/siemens/simatic-ipc.c
> …
> > @@ -118,8 +119,11 @@ static int register_platform_devices(u32 station_id)
> >                       platform_device_register_data(NULL, pdevname,
> >                               PLATFORM_DEVID_NONE, &platform_data,
> >                               sizeof(struct simatic_ipc_platform));
> > -             if (IS_ERR(ipc_batt_platform_device))
> > -                     return PTR_ERR(ipc_batt_platform_device);
> > +             if (IS_ERR(ipc_batt_platform_device)) {
> > +                     ret = PTR_ERR(ipc_batt_platform_device);
> > +                     ipc_batt_platform_device = NULL;
> > +                     goto err_unregister;
> > +             }
> …
>
> How do you think about to avoid duplicate checks and variable resets
> in such a function implementation?
>
> Regards,
> Markus

Would it make sense to share the cleanup path and rely on
platform_device_unregister() handling NULL/ERR_PTR, like this?

+static void unregister_platform_devices(void)
+{
+        platform_device_unregister(ipc_wdt_platform_device);
+        platform_device_unregister(ipc_led_platform_device);
+        platform_device_unregister(ipc_batt_platform_device);
+}
+
 static int register_platform_devices(u32 station_id)
 {
        u8 ledmode = SIMATIC_IPC_DEVICE_NONE;
        u8 wdtmode = SIMATIC_IPC_DEVICE_NONE;
        u8 battmode = SIMATIC_IPC_DEVICE_NONE;
        char *pdevname;
+       int ret;
        int i;

        ...

-       if (IS_ERR(ipc_batt_platform_device))
-               return PTR_ERR(ipc_batt_platform_device);
+       if (IS_ERR(ipc_batt_platform_device)) {
+               ret = PTR_ERR(ipc_batt_platform_device);
+               goto err_unregister;
+       }

        ...

-       if (IS_ERR(ipc_led_platform_device))
-               return PTR_ERR(ipc_led_platform_device);
+       if (IS_ERR(ipc_led_platform_device)) {
+               ret = PTR_ERR(ipc_led_platform_device);
+               goto err_unregister;
+       }

        ...

-       if (IS_ERR(ipc_wdt_platform_device))
-               return PTR_ERR(ipc_wdt_platform_device);
+       if (IS_ERR(ipc_wdt_platform_device)) {
+               ret = PTR_ERR(ipc_wdt_platform_device);
+               goto err_unregister;
+       }

        ...

        return 0;
+
+err_unregister:
+       unregister_platform_devices();
+       return ret;
 }

 ...

 static void __exit simatic_ipc_exit_module(void)
 {
-       platform_device_unregister(ipc_led_platform_device);
-       ipc_led_platform_device = NULL;
-
-       platform_device_unregister(ipc_wdt_platform_device);
-       ipc_wdt_platform_device = NULL;
-       platform_device_unregister(ipc_batt_platform_device);
-       ipc_batt_platform_device = NULL;
+       unregister_platform_devices();
 }

Would this be closer to what you had in mind?

If so, I'll follow Krzysztof's suggestion and organize the related
patches into a proper patch series before sending v2.

Thanks,
Guangshuo

Re: [PATCH] platform/x86: simatic-ipc: fix platform device leak on registration failure

[Markus Elfring]

>> …
>>> +++ b/drivers/platform/x86/siemens/simatic-ipc.c
>> …
>>> @@ -118,8 +119,11 @@ static int register_platform_devices(u32 station_id)
>>>                       platform_device_register_data(NULL, pdevname,
>>>                               PLATFORM_DEVID_NONE, &platform_data,
>>>                               sizeof(struct simatic_ipc_platform));
>>> -             if (IS_ERR(ipc_batt_platform_device))
>>> -                     return PTR_ERR(ipc_batt_platform_device);
>>> +             if (IS_ERR(ipc_batt_platform_device)) {
>>> +                     ret = PTR_ERR(ipc_batt_platform_device);
>>> +                     ipc_batt_platform_device = NULL;
>>> +                     goto err_unregister;
>>> +             }
>> …
>>
>> How do you think about to avoid duplicate checks and variable resets
>> in such a function implementation?
…
> Would it make sense to share the cleanup path and rely on
> platform_device_unregister() handling NULL/ERR_PTR, like this?

It probably depends on corresponding case distinctions.


> +static void unregister_platform_devices(void)
> +{
> +        platform_device_unregister(ipc_wdt_platform_device);
> +        platform_device_unregister(ipc_led_platform_device);
> +        platform_device_unregister(ipc_batt_platform_device);
> +}

* Would you like to avoid the passing of any error pointers here?

* How do you think about the relevance for variable resets?


> +
>  static int register_platform_devices(u32 station_id)
>  {
…
>         return 0;
> +
> +err_unregister:
> +       unregister_platform_devices();
> +       return ret;
>  }…

Regards,
Markus

Re: [PATCH] platform/x86: simatic-ipc: fix platform device leak on registration failure

[Dan Carpenter]

On Tue, Sep 22, 2026 at 04:13:17PM +0800, Guangshuo Li wrote:
> 
> Would it make sense to share the cleanup path and rely on
> platform_device_unregister() handling NULL/ERR_PTR, like this?
> 
> +static void unregister_platform_devices(void)
> +{
> +        platform_device_unregister(ipc_wdt_platform_device);
> +        platform_device_unregister(ipc_led_platform_device);
> +        platform_device_unregister(ipc_batt_platform_device);
> +}

Having one magical cleanup function is the most bug prone way to
write cleanup.  Use an unwind ladder.

https://staticthinking.wordpress.com/2022/04/28/free-the-last-thing-style/

regards,
dan carpenter