[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