driver_find_device() calls get_device() to increment the reference count once a matching device is found, but there is no put_device() to balance the reference count. To avoid reference count leakage, add put_device() to decrease the reference count.
Found by code review.
Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org Fixes: a31500fe7055 ("drm/tegra: dc: Restore coupling of display controllers") Signed-off-by: Ma Ke make24@iscas.ac.cn --- drivers/gpu/drm/tegra/dc.c | 1 + 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/tegra/dc.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/tegra/dc.c index 59d5c1ba145a..6c84bd69b11f 100644 --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/tegra/dc.c +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/tegra/dc.c @@ -3148,6 +3148,7 @@ static int tegra_dc_couple(struct tegra_dc *dc) dc->client.parent = &parent->client;
dev_dbg(dc->dev, "coupled to %s\n", dev_name(companion)); + put_device(companion); }
return 0;
driver_find_device() calls get_device() to increment the reference count once a matching device is found, but there is no put_device() to balance the reference count. To avoid reference count leakage, add put_device() to decrease the reference count.
How do you think about to increase the application of scope-based resource management? https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v6.17-rc7/source/include/linux/device.h#L11...
Regards, Markus
On Sat, Sep 27, 2025 at 02:43:17PM +0200, Markus Elfring wrote:
driver_find_device() calls get_device() to increment the reference count once a matching device is found, but there is no put_device() to balance the reference count. To avoid reference count leakage, add put_device() to decrease the reference count.
How do you think about to increase the application of scope-based resource management? https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v6.17-rc7/source/include/linux/device.h#L11...
Hi,
This is the semi-friendly patch-bot of Greg Kroah-Hartman.
Markus, you seem to have sent a nonsensical or otherwise pointless review comment to a patch submission on a Linux kernel developer mailing list. I strongly suggest that you not do this anymore. Please do not bother developers who are actively working to produce patches and features with comments that, in the end, are a waste of time.
Patch submitter, please ignore Markus's suggestion; you do not need to follow it at all. The person/bot/AI that sent it is being ignored by almost all Linux kernel maintainers for having a persistent pattern of behavior of producing distracting and pointless commentary, and inability to adapt to feedback. Please feel free to also ignore emails from them.
thanks,
greg k-h's patch email bot
linux-stable-mirror@lists.linaro.org
-
Greg KH -
Ma Ke -
Markus Elfring