Re: [PATCH] dca: fix provider device memory leak on domain allocation failure

[Guangshuo Li]

Hi Krzysztof,

Thank you for your feedback.

On Mon, 21 Sept 2026 at 23:13, <krzk@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>
> On Sun, 20 Sep 2026 01:59:24 +0800, Guangshuo Li wrote:
> > register_dca_provider() calls dca_sysfs_add_provider() before looking up
> > or allocating the DCA domain. A successful dca_sysfs_add_provider()
> > allocates an IDR entry and creates the dca%d class device.
> >
> > If no domain exists and dca_allocate_domain() fails, the function
> > returns -ENODEV without calling dca_sysfs_remove_provider(). The class
> > device therefore remains registered and the IDR entry remains
> > allocated. The caller may subsequently free the dca_provider, leaving
> > the IDR entry pointing to freed memory.
> >
> > Since the class device is never unregistered, its device reference is
> > not dropped and device_create_release() is never reached, leaking the
> > struct device allocation.
> >
> > Call dca_sysfs_remove_provider() before returning when domain allocation
> > fails. This unregisters the class device and removes the corresponding
> > IDR entry.
> >
> > The issue was identified by a static analysis tool I developed and
> > confirmed by manual review.
> >
> > Fixes: 1a5aeeecd550 ("dca: registering requesters in multiple dca domains")
> > Cc: stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > Signed-off-by: Guangshuo Li <lgs201920130244@xxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> >  drivers/dca/dca-core.c | 5 ++++-
> >  1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
>
>
> 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