Re: [PATCH] RDMA/cm: Release the GID attribute even if its port has no CM support

[Krzysztof Kozlowski]

On Tue, 03 Nov 2026 08:11:03 +0000, Wentao Liang wrote:
> When no source GID attribute is supplied, get_cm_port_from_path() looks
> one up with rdma_find_gid(). A successful lookup takes a reference even
> if the matching port has no CM port object. cm_add_one() skips ports
> without IB CM support, so cm_dev->port[] can contain NULL entries.
> 
> The current cleanup tests port instead of the lookup result, leaking the
> GID attribute reference when a matching non-CM port is found. Test whether
> the attribute is valid before releasing it. Keep the put outside the
> CM device lock and skip it for a failed lookup or an empty device list.
> 
> Fixes: 398391071f25 ("IB/cm: Replace members of sa_path_rec with 'struct sgid_attr *'")
> Cc: stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Assisted-by: DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash and OpenAI Codex
> Signed-off-by: Wentao Liang <vulab@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
>  drivers/infiniband/core/cm.c | 2 +-
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 



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