Hi, On Mon, Mar 29, 2021 at 10:02:20AM -0300, Jason Gunthorpe wrote: > On Mon, Mar 29, 2021 at 09:07:18AM +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote: > > After the device_register() succeeds, then the correct way to clean up > > is to call device_unregister(). The unregister calls both device_del() > > and device_put(). Since this code was only device_del() it results in > > a memory leak. > > > > Fixes: dacb12877d92 ("thunderbolt: Add support for on-board retimers") > > Signed-off-by: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@xxxxxxxxxx> > > --- > > This is from a new static checker warning. Not tested. With new > > warnings it's also possible that I have misunderstood something > > fundamental so review carefully etc. > > It looks OK to me I agree too. > Reviewed-by: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@xxxxxxxxxx> Thanks for the review! > This also highlights the code has an ordering issue too, it calls > device_register() then goes to do tb_retimer_nvm_add() however > device_register() makes sysfs attributes visible before the rt->nvm is > initialized and this: > > static ssize_t nvm_authenticate_store(struct device *dev, > struct device_attribute *attr, const char *buf, size_t count) > { > if (!rt->nvm) { > > Isn't strong enough to close the potential racing. The nvm should be > setup before device_register and all the above tests in the sysfs > deleted so we can rely on the CPU barriers built into > device_register() for correctness. > > [which is a general tip, be very suspicious if device_register() is > being error unwound] The nvm is a separate (physical Linux) device that gets added under this one. It cannot be added before AFAICT. The code you refer actually looks like this: static ssize_t nvm_authenticate_store(struct device *dev, struct device_attribute *attr, const char *buf, size_t count) { ... if (!mutex_trylock(&rt->tb->lock)) { ret = restart_syscall(); goto exit_rpm; } if (!rt->nvm) { ret = -EAGAIN; goto exit_unlock; } Idea here is that if the NVMem (nvm) is not yet registered the attribute is there but we return -EAGAIN to the userspace.