From: "Chen, Zide" <zide.chen@intel.com>
To: Markus Elfring <Markus.Elfring@web.de>,
linux-perf-users@vger.kernel.org,
Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@intel.com>,
Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin@linux.intel.com>,
Andi Kleen <ak@linux.intel.com>,
Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@kernel.org>,
Dapeng Mi <dapeng1.mi@linux.intel.com>,
Ian Rogers <irogers@google.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
Namhyung Kim <namhyung@kernel.org>,
Stephane Eranian <eranian@google.com>
Cc: lkp@intel.com, LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org,
Thomas Falcon <thomas.falcon@intel.com>,
Xudong Hao <xudong.hao@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] perf/x86/intel/uncore: Fix iounmap() leak on global_init failure
Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2026 11:41:06 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <e7d74d9d-cb45-4f5f-8e44-502dd7c4bcff@intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <77078fe5-23fa-4278-b32f-f655f0760be1@web.de>
On 1/13/2026 11:51 PM, Markus Elfring wrote:
>>>> If domain->global_init() fails in __parse_discovery_table(), the
>>>> mapped MMIO region is not released before returning, resulting in
>>>> an iounmap() leak.
>>>
>>> How do you think about to avoid a bit of duplicate source code here?
>>> https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/Documentation/process/coding-style.rst?h=v6.19-rc5#n526
>>
>> Thank you for the suggestion!
>>
>> Yes, I agree this is better.
>
> Thanks for this positive feedback.
>
>
>> In V1 I followed the existing style in this API.
>
> This variant might be nicer for backporting.
>
>
>> I will post a v2 with this change:
>>
>> @@ -264,6 +264,7 @@ static int __parse_discovery_table(struct
>> uncore_discovery_domain *domain,
>> struct uncore_unit_discovery unit;
>> void __iomem *io_addr;
>> unsigned long size;
>> + int ret = 0;
>> int i;
>
> Would scope adjustments become helpful for any of these local vartiables?
Yes, I agree that moving int i into the for loop would be better, but
I’d prefer to keep this patch focused and leave that change for future
cleanup.
>
>> size = UNCORE_DISCOVERY_GLOBAL_MAP_SIZE;
>> @@ -273,21 +274,23 @@ static int __parse_discovery_table(struct
> …
>> - if (domain->global_init && domain->global_init(global.ctl))
>> - return -ENODEV;
>> + if (domain->global_init && domain->global_init(global.ctl)) {
>> + ret = -ENODEV;
>> + goto out;
>> + }
> …
>> *parsed = true;
>> +
>> +out:
>
> Would an other label be a bit clearer here?
>
> unmap_io:
It seems that the perf driver generally uses simple labels such as done,
out, or err. Additionally, since there is only a single error path
here, I would prefer to keep the label out for style consistency.
>
>> iounmap(io_addr);
>> - return 0;
>> + return ret;
>> }
>>
>> static int parse_discovery_table(struct uncore_discovery_domain
>>
>>> See also once more:
>>> https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst?h=v6.19-rc5#n94
>
> Will another imperative wording become helpful for an improved change description?
Sure, I’ll try my best to improve the description.
>> Are you suggesting that I add a Closes tag?
>
> It depends …
>
>
>> This issue was reported by Intel internal LKP, and there is no public
>> URL available.
>
> Thanks for such a bit of background information.
> Some contributors would appreciate further hints on involved development tools
> (and known source code analysis approaches).
I may add the following report to the commit message for additional context:
Unverified Error/Warning (likely false positive, kindly check if
interested):
arch/x86/events/intel/uncore_discovery.c:293:2-8:
ERROR: missing iounmap; ioremap on line 288 and execution via
conditional on line 292
> Regards,
> Markus
prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-01-14 19:41 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-01-13 0:25 [PATCH] perf/x86/intel/uncore: Fix iounmap() leak on global_init failure Zide Chen
2026-01-13 0:48 ` Mi, Dapeng
2026-01-13 16:21 ` Markus Elfring
2026-01-13 22:04 ` Chen, Zide
2026-01-14 7:25 ` Markus Elfring
2026-01-14 7:51 ` Markus Elfring
2026-01-14 19:41 ` Chen, Zide [this message]
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=e7d74d9d-cb45-4f5f-8e44-502dd7c4bcff@intel.com \
--to=zide.chen@intel.com \
--cc=Markus.Elfring@web.de \
--cc=acme@kernel.org \
--cc=adrian.hunter@intel.com \
--cc=ak@linux.intel.com \
--cc=alexander.shishkin@linux.intel.com \
--cc=dapeng1.mi@linux.intel.com \
--cc=eranian@google.com \
--cc=irogers@google.com \
--cc=kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-perf-users@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=lkp@intel.com \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=namhyung@kernel.org \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=thomas.falcon@intel.com \
--cc=xudong.hao@intel.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox