[PATCH] 9p: put the request on a duplicate RDMA reply

[PATCH] 9p: put the request on a duplicate RDMA reply

[Wentao Liang]

recv_done() gets a reference on the request from p9_tag_lookup(), which
the normal path hands over to p9_client_cb() and that puts it. The
duplicate reply path jumps to err_out without calling p9_client_cb(), so
the reference taken by the lookup is never dropped and the request, its
tag and its buffers are leaked. A duplicated reply for a request that is
still in the idr is exactly what this path is here to handle, so drop
the reference before bailing out.

Fixes: 728356dedeff ("9p: Add refcount to p9_req_t")
Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org
Assisted-by: DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash and OpenAI Codex
Signed-off-by: Wentao Liang <vulab@iscas.ac.cn>
---
 net/9p/trans_rdma.c | 1 +
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)

diff --git a/net/9p/trans_rdma.c b/net/9p/trans_rdma.c
index b4274f10fa44..6ebd55ff8b37 100644
--- a/net/9p/trans_rdma.c
+++ b/net/9p/trans_rdma.c
@@ -217,6 +217,7 @@ recv_done(struct ib_cq *cq, struct ib_wc *wc)
 	 */
 	if (unlikely(req->rc.sdata)) {
 		pr_err("Duplicate reply for request %d", tag);
+		p9_req_put(client, req);
 		goto err_out;
 	}
 
-- 
2.34.1

Re: [PATCH] 9p: put the request on a duplicate RDMA reply

[sashiko-bot]

> recv_done() gets a reference on the request from p9_tag_lookup(), which
> the normal path hands over to p9_client_cb() and that puts it. The
> duplicate reply path jumps to err_out without calling p9_client_cb(), so
> the reference taken by the lookup is never dropped and the request, its
> tag and its buffers are leaked. A duplicated reply for a request that is
> still in the idr is exactly what this path is here to handle, so drop
> the reference before bailing out.
> 
> Fixes: 728356dedeff ("9p: Add refcount to p9_req_t")
> Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org
> Assisted-by: DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash and OpenAI Codex
> Signed-off-by: Wentao Liang <vulab@iscas.ac.cn>

Sashiko has reviewed this patch and found no issues.

-- 
Sashiko AI review · https://sashiko.dev/#/patchset/20261104022806.1484080-1-vulab@iscas.ac.cn?part=1

Re: [PATCH] 9p: put the request on a duplicate RDMA reply

[Krzysztof Kozlowski]

On Wed, 04 Nov 2026 02:28:06 +0000, Wentao Liang wrote:
> recv_done() gets a reference on the request from p9_tag_lookup(), which
> the normal path hands over to p9_client_cb() and that puts it. The
> duplicate reply path jumps to err_out without calling p9_client_cb(), so
> the reference taken by the lookup is never dropped and the request, its
> tag and its buffers are leaked. A duplicated reply for a request that is
> still in the idr is exactly what this path is here to handle, so drop
> the reference before bailing out.
> 
> Fixes: 728356dedeff ("9p: Add refcount to p9_req_t")
> Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org
> Assisted-by: DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash and OpenAI Codex
> Signed-off-by: Wentao Liang <vulab@iscas.ac.cn>
> ---
>  net/9p/trans_rdma.c | 1 +
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
> 

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