From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtp.kernel.org (aws-us-west-2-korg-mail-alma10-1.taild15c8.ts.net [100.103.45.18]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B02AC499F17; Mon, 21 Sep 2026 15:13:53 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=100.103.45.18 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1790003634; cv=none; b=NKH7goQHKO4zQaXE/cWn+R9X5OYyzrDsSzzLL7fJ/xo/nQiccct5ZzlWa5RRKa8Xd0UoJZSb5fHA0Xf3zMWUxMe3S7lttOGWqKopQewDmWS5Upl16QG5sto2AmLfCcTa1qTFbLMezTXfFKsI5NWSaXO+Lamr5PiC+uIjyMzGFOI= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1790003634; c=relaxed/simple; bh=bqE1xEot6tiyL8ZmNNempke5NHtbffWU04ZTox5AuAs=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=q+QGZ7tstSZmc5h2afTn2HBN5tm3HurxEB+ydbm3sKGO0cjiJTgqTdDcvANTdzndzLs5wUaoDDXxXdI3Jr9qYyK/6wGyLceAQ7V1nHx4TZeBzi6Es4iEK7hbHkwGnVrQYCEL0xRMOQikqD+U8780x6qiDsV2B9mQMrZsAb1+x3Q= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b=cc1hCmak; arc=none smtp.client-ip=100.103.45.18 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b="cc1hCmak" Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 99BD31F000FF; Mon, 21 Sep 2026 15:13:52 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=kernel.org; s=k20260515; t=1790003633; bh=ZDRQ8N++1ApttUwT3N9xaoQfi3XlqZ/LvnDqiBydZrQ=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To; b=cc1hCmak9MnLVSyItvdYF19QPrqsY4ZANqMEsli5mCF1D/wouBXlfbJBRLXgsMN8d mXKE+hWDqXvxgduDPBHAvrEr1CCJFbKMIawi4wSxLtzF++qSLy33WQRglavpqQbv// czTJZ/5PuwE3ky01ofsn2ZaO90ZGtm3d+pMYhbQ/vpX21wzQZ2H0mvVmP1fmdTSMCI jOVRMTblUcTAD0KW6cRYiIVCratM1yr/zkPA27klgQySE0WtipE/kexJTaOb5s+LGP /sboowP4V7r+J5d9lp0hx9NqWN7GtDKjLEXH4RU3B/ph+nwOvrTf1OhpW2OWz5h3Gy AR9WQxLY2Ta3Q== Date: Mon, 21 Sep 2026 17:13:50 +0200 From: krzk@kernel.org To: Guangshuo Li Cc: Vignesh Raghavendra , stable@vger.kernel.org, Miquel Raynal , Richard Weinberger , Martin Blumenstingl , linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] mtd: rawnand: intel: fix OF node reference leak Message-ID: References: <20260915163407.2487869-1-lgs201920130244@gmail.com> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20260915163407.2487869-1-lgs201920130244@gmail.com> On Wed, 16 Sep 2026 00:34:07 +0800, Guangshuo Li wrote: > ebu_nand_probe() gets a reference to the NAND chip node with > of_get_next_child(). The probe failure paths release the reference with > of_node_put(), but the successful probe path keeps it for the lifetime > of the device and ebu_nand_remove() never drops it. > > As a result, each bind/unbind cycle leaks a reference to the NAND chip > device node. > > Drop the reference in ebu_nand_remove() after the NAND teardown using > the flash node stored in the NAND chip. > > This issue was found by manual code inspection. > > Fixes: bfc618fcc3f1 ("mtd: rawnand: intel: Read the chip-select line from the correct OF node") > Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org > Signed-off-by: Guangshuo Li > --- > drivers/mtd/nand/raw/intel-nand-controller.c | 2 ++ > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+) > 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, how to document usage of LLM and how what you should not do if this was posted in a good faith. Best regards, Krzysztof