From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from lists.ozlabs.org (lists.ozlabs.org [112.213.38.117]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E93E0CA601A for ; Fri, 9 Oct 2026 06:10:43 +0000 (UTC) Received: from boromir.ozlabs.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4j1Ggk4jc2z30Ng; Fri, 09 Oct 2026 17:10:42 +1100 (AEDT) Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org; arc=none smtp.remote-ip="2600:3c0a:e001:78e:0:1991:8:25" ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=lists.ozlabs.org; s=201707; t=1791526242; cv=none; b=ELfi/E+IBq+xZ2rieCG0BdESYmL4ax60PsNYwFzYsVAmCUmObmLGr9Nt+OcPluGGd63NpT1TbMXM+LFmFnA7gYjAMImTX/ft5Hty+fOITk4m0Ob/0oZQ+Xa0G5fsjxi0HXUg5MbmGFk4RtmcFZekGA29ilJvNpS810EvURLolaOMnBej5QW7GzphOCpMZqDY0G6B0EsrLbL5V+2rxLvMi6NRJjO441mg39TjBV2oSx2GsLAbMnybn0fYuQ9TT+vAu2Lx+nIq/sKYMhCN/e5Ojy7u6tNu3Cw+Or9Gbeo0b1tZgQawGr9Alw5ouJbk87ZbhZqD42HWcZy4r5jHapMBrg== ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=lists.ozlabs.org; s=201707; t=1791526242; c=relaxed/relaxed; bh=Bnt9ePZGN5hBqrnLAmtnR+vNRgS1zeRKnODE66mwB2k=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=CKvA/ZGtc72sJl+9u/475Lmu4WC/rwjgfMyDKm4egAreyp2RnWLeN53i6t4hSE5k3JFuSC4LImgWNNlSnxADN3ypq4aKlhVDU+bO+o3VR6vqXDpykfpgyrnxTOrKKXn+x5KgzjpdFaLjTVGipbhPSuAiKZ7efE9ltwpUnWzGSmqxVWiT6whwskjHO76LQ9mtQ5xT7dvWc9Qi8/FJ9z4YJR9AlclJ3lnByBqpquqrk9C71ON/tJUr84zB+phQB1bp3ISBkIvgNr9sxmSLkehSFpD4Rb84b8BUfiHm81rQWCsIgGlkjsFvYi514NFWlkoW0Fwk0E4eOYasocqVoQqYww== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; lists.ozlabs.org; dmarc=pass (p=quarantine dis=none) header.from=kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key; unprotected) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=k20260515 header.b=YYI0RK2f; dkim-atps=neutral; spf=pass (client-ip=2600:3c0a:e001:78e:0:1991:8:25; helo=sea.source.kernel.org; envelope-from=krzk@kernel.org; receiver=lists.ozlabs.org) smtp.mailfrom=kernel.org Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org; dmarc=pass (p=quarantine dis=none) header.from=kernel.org Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key; unprotected) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=k20260515 header.b=YYI0RK2f; dkim-atps=neutral Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org; spf=pass (sender SPF authorized) smtp.mailfrom=kernel.org (client-ip=2600:3c0a:e001:78e:0:1991:8:25; helo=sea.source.kernel.org; envelope-from=krzk@kernel.org; receiver=lists.ozlabs.org) Received: from sea.source.kernel.org (sea.source.kernel.org [IPv6:2600:3c0a:e001:78e:0:1991:8:25]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange x25519) (No client certificate requested) by lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4j1Ggj2Ywnz30DZ for ; Fri, 09 Oct 2026 17:10:41 +1100 (AEDT) Received: from smtp.kernel.org (quasi.space.kernel.org [100.103.45.18]) by sea.source.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D65194078E; Fri, 9 Oct 2026 06:10:38 +0000 (UTC) Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id EE73E1F00898; Fri, 9 Oct 2026 06:10:37 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=kernel.org; s=k20260515; t=1791526238; bh=Bnt9ePZGN5hBqrnLAmtnR+vNRgS1zeRKnODE66mwB2k=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To; b=YYI0RK2fKOWNLtf06iFFTM/c2Swa7r6ktaEWLBX37GtHtm+y8br8hoXW8SfoxMD6X p9wwdbmSNnqM2lgVvUavLWls7JV8YBJnzcTAObR2B6/3NGPzfKRZlggneb/4qyzH/0 CoxZ6wIcuBTRLLWoKx6C7uL1/xm5WloPiQJaFIfcdO7BFq1wxH/Ct4E75Uiyt1NsGj bbeJ0vC1Zjbg2mKFXXQ4mQgI1vsLFusKoul+oAph61wmotwXv4atCQF3uK4cJB1jZ2 GvypOvn8fWj2Dj8X/CjV6Or2ldbcBTQV9snCTrkkecd925NqZoZjp11i6AKUoOH5qf L+0alVP96hUeA== Date: Fri, 9 Oct 2026 08:10:35 +0200 From: Krzysztof Kozlowski To: Haotian Zhang Cc: Michael Ellerman , Hari Bathini , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Shrikanth Hegde , linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, Madhavan Srinivasan , Nicholas Piggin Subject: Re: [PATCH] powerpc/opalcore: fix device node leak on incompatible dump node Message-ID: <20261009-lurking-curvy-piculet-ba68dc@quoll> References: <20261008190549.2800467-1-vulab@iscas.ac.cn> X-Mailing-List: linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org List-Id: List-Help: List-Owner: List-Post: List-Archive: , List-Subscribe: , , List-Unsubscribe: Precedence: list MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20261008190549.2800467-1-vulab@iscas.ac.cn> On Fri, 09 Oct 2026 03:05:49 +0800, Haotian Zhang wrote: > opalcore_config_init() gets a reference on the "/ibm,opal/dump" device > node with of_find_node_by_path(), but when the node is not compatible > with "ibm,opal-dump" it warns and returns without dropping that > reference, leaking the node. Every other exit path, including the > adjacent of_get_property() failure, releases it. > > Release the device node reference before returning from that error path. > > Fixes: 6f713d18144c ("powerpc/opalcore: export /sys/firmware/opal/core for analysing opal crashes") > Assisted-by: DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash > Signed-off-by: Haotian Zhang > --- > arch/powerpc/platforms/powernv/opal-core.c | 1 + > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+) > Multiple things here: 1. Your team ignored completely previous feedback. 2. You use multiple identities with this email, thus I actually doubt we speak with actual person. 3. Finally, 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 usage of LLM and how what you should not do if this was posted in a good faith. Best regards, Krzysztof