From: Ma Ke <make24@iscas.ac.cn>
To: vz@mleia.com
Cc: alexandre.belloni@bootlin.com, andrew+netdev@lunn.ch,
davem@davemloft.net, edumazet@google.com, kuba@kernel.org,
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, make24@iscas.ac.cn,
netdev@vger.kernel.org, pabeni@redhat.com,
piotr.wojtaszczyk@timesys.com, stable@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] net: lpc_eth: Fix a possible memory leak in lpc_mii_probe()
Date: Tue, 31 Mar 2026 08:43:25 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20260331004325.3304949-1-make24@iscas.ac.cn> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <b44db9e6-f820-439d-a7ed-c1e2514579a8@mleia.com>
On 3/30/26 13:04, Vladimir Zapolskiy wrote:
> On 3/30/26 11:16, Ma Ke wrote:
> > lpc_mii_probe() calls of_phy_find_device() to obtain a phy_device
> > pointer. of_phy_find_device() increments the refcount of the device.
> > The current implementation does not decrement the refcount after using
> > the pointer, which leads to a memory leak.
>
> this is correct, there is an actual detected bug.
>
> >
> > Add phy_device_free() to balance the refcount.
>
> But this does not sound right, you shoud use of_node_put(pldat->phy_node).
>
> >
> > Found by code review.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Ma Ke <make24@iscas.ac.cn>
> > Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org
> > Fixes: 3503bf024b3e ("net: lpc_eth: parse phy nodes from device tree")
> > ---
> > drivers/net/ethernet/nxp/lpc_eth.c | 11 ++++++-----
> > 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/nxp/lpc_eth.c b/drivers/net/ethernet/nxp/lpc_eth.c
> > index 8b9a3e3bba30..8ce7c9bb6dd6 100644
> > --- a/drivers/net/ethernet/nxp/lpc_eth.c
> > +++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/nxp/lpc_eth.c
> > @@ -751,7 +751,7 @@ static void lpc_handle_link_change(struct net_device *ndev)
> > static int lpc_mii_probe(struct net_device *ndev)
> > {
> > struct netdata_local *pldat = netdev_priv(ndev);
> > - struct phy_device *phydev;
> > + struct phy_device *phydev, *phydev_tmp;
> >
> > /* Attach to the PHY */
> > if (lpc_phy_interface_mode(&pldat->pdev->dev) == PHY_INTERFACE_MODE_MII)
> > @@ -760,17 +760,18 @@ static int lpc_mii_probe(struct net_device *ndev)
> > netdev_info(ndev, "using RMII interface\n");
> >
> > if (pldat->phy_node)
> > - phydev = of_phy_find_device(pldat->phy_node);
> > + phydev_tmp = of_phy_find_device(pldat->phy_node);
> > else
> > - phydev = phy_find_first(pldat->mii_bus);
> > - if (!phydev) {
> > + phydev_tmp = phy_find_first(pldat->mii_bus);
> > + if (!phydev_tmp) {
>
> I didn't get it, why the new phydev_tmp is needed above, please
> restore the original code above.
>
> > netdev_err(ndev, "no PHY found\n");
> > return -ENODEV;
> > }
> >
> > - phydev = phy_connect(ndev, phydev_name(phydev),
> > + phydev = phy_connect(ndev, phydev_name(phydev_tmp),
> > &lpc_handle_link_change,
> > lpc_phy_interface_mode(&pldat->pdev->dev));
> > + phy_device_free(phydev_tmp);
>
> This is plainly wrong and has to be dropped or changed to
>
> if (pldat->phy_node)
> of_node_put(pldat->phy_node);
>
> > if (IS_ERR(phydev)) {
> > netdev_err(ndev, "Could not attach to PHY\n");
> > return PTR_ERR(phydev);
>
> Is it AI generated fix or what?.. The change looks bad, it introduces
> more severe issues than it fixes.
>
> If you think you cannot create a proper change, let me know.
>
> --
> Best wishes,
> Vladimir
Thank you very much for your detailed review and guidance.
Now I think your point probably is: you are saying that the real leak is not from of_phy_find_device(), but from the device node pldat->phy_node which was obtained earlier (probably by of_parse_phandle()) and never freed by of_node_put(). And you suggest to add of_node_put(pldat->phy_node) instead of my wrong phy_device_free().
However, I am still a little confused. In lpc_mii_probe(), of_phy_find_device() is called. From my understanding, this function increases the reference count of the device. To balance it, I thought phy_device_free() (which calls put_device()) should be used.
Could you please kindly advise the correct patch? I will follow your guidance and submit a proper fix.
I apologize again for my previous wrong patch. Thank you very much for your help.
Best regards,
Ma Ke
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-03-31 0:43 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-03-30 8:16 [PATCH] net: lpc_eth: Fix a possible memory leak in lpc_mii_probe() Ma Ke
2026-03-30 10:04 ` Vladimir Zapolskiy
2026-03-31 0:43 ` Ma Ke [this message]
2026-04-01 13:18 ` Ma Ke
2026-04-07 20:58 ` Vladimir Zapolskiy
2026-04-20 3:24 ` Ma Ke
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=20260331004325.3304949-1-make24@iscas.ac.cn \
--to=make24@iscas.ac.cn \
--cc=alexandre.belloni@bootlin.com \
--cc=andrew+netdev@lunn.ch \
--cc=davem@davemloft.net \
--cc=edumazet@google.com \
--cc=kuba@kernel.org \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=pabeni@redhat.com \
--cc=piotr.wojtaszczyk@timesys.com \
--cc=stable@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=vz@mleia.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