[PATCH] nvdimm/bus: Fix dev double put in nd_async_device_register()

[PATCH] nvdimm/bus: Fix dev double put in nd_async_device_register()

[Wentao Liang]

device_add() takes and drops its own reference on every return path, so
the async worker only owns the reference that __nd_device_register()
took with get_device(). The failure branch drops that same reference once
more before the unconditional put_device(), which underflows the refcount
and frees the device while it is still referenced by its creator, as
reported by KASAN for the parent pointer access in this function.

Drop the spurious put_device() from the failure branch.

Fixes: 4d88a97aa9e8c ("libnvdimm, nvdimm: dimm driver and base libnvdimm device-driver infrastructure")
Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org
Signed-off-by: Wentao Liang <vulab@iscas.ac.cn>
---
 drivers/nvdimm/bus.c | 4 +---
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 3 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/nvdimm/bus.c b/drivers/nvdimm/bus.c
index 45b7d756e39a..a1f33a03aba8 100644
--- a/drivers/nvdimm/bus.c
+++ b/drivers/nvdimm/bus.c
@@ -488,10 +488,8 @@ static void nd_async_device_register(void *d, async_cookie_t cookie)
 	struct device *dev = d;
 	struct device *parent = dev->parent;
 
-	if (device_add(dev) != 0) {
+	if (device_add(dev) != 0)
 		dev_err(dev, "%s: failed\n", __func__);
-		put_device(dev);
-	}
 	put_device(dev);
 	if (parent)
 		put_device(parent);
-- 
2.34.1

Re: [PATCH] nvdimm/bus: Fix dev double put in nd_async_device_register()

[sashiko-bot]

Thank you for your contribution! Sashiko AI review found 1 potential issue(s) to consider:
- [Medium] nvdimm: memory leak on device_add() failure in nd_async_device_register()
--

commit 3bb889471cc9122db778cd1b964d9131ca101b98
Author: Wentao Liang <vulab@iscas.ac.cn>

nvdimm/bus: Fix dev double put in nd_async_device_register()

device_add() takes and drops its own reference on every return path, so
the async worker only owns the reference that __nd_device_register()
took with get_device(). The failure branch drops that same reference once
more before the unconditional put_device(), which underflows the refcount
and frees the device while it is still referenced by its creator.

> diff --git a/drivers/nvdimm/bus.c b/drivers/nvdimm/bus.c
> index 45b7d756e39a0..a1f33a03aba81 100644
> --- a/drivers/nvdimm/bus.c
> +++ b/drivers/nvdimm/bus.c
> @@ -488,10 +488,8 @@ static void nd_async_device_register(void *d, async_cookie_t cookie)
>  	struct device *dev = d;
>  	struct device *parent = dev->parent;
>  
> -	if (device_add(dev) != 0) {
> +	if (device_add(dev) != 0)
>  		dev_err(dev, "%s: failed\n", __func__);
> -		put_device(dev);
> -	}

[Severity: Medium]
Will this lead to a memory leak of the device if device_add() fails?

Devices initialized with device_initialize() start with a refcount of 1.
In __nd_device_register(), a second reference is taken before queuing the
async worker. If device_add() fails here, it does not consume a reference.

By removing the extra put_device() from the failure path, the async worker
only drops the second reference, leaving the device with a refcount of 1.
Because device_add() failed, the device isn't added to the parent's
klist_children, so it won't be unregistered when the parent is removed.
Since the creator simply nullifies its pointer without dropping the final
reference, does this result in a permanent leak of the device and its
container structures?

>  	put_device(dev);
>  	if (parent)
>  		put_device(parent);

-- 
Sashiko AI review · https://sashiko.dev/#/patchset/20260917122816.2151081-1-vulab@iscas.ac.cn?part=1