The merge order test creates an array and a chain as inputs to dma_fence_unwrap_merge(). The merge takes references to the underlying fences but does not consume the input containers. The success path only puts the merged result, leaking both the input array and the outer chain, which owns the inner chain.
Put the outer chain after checking the merged result and fall through to the existing array cleanup on success as well as failure.
The dma-buf-fence-unwrap KUnit suite passes all 11 tests under UML.
Fixes: b1cce631e61f ("dma-buf: add selftest for fence order after merge") Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org Assisted-by: DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash and OpenAI Codex Signed-off-by: Wentao Liang vulab@iscas.ac.cn --- drivers/dma-buf/st-dma-fence-unwrap.c | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/drivers/dma-buf/st-dma-fence-unwrap.c b/drivers/dma-buf/st-dma-fence-unwrap.c index c5353b36f0e4..8115a721dc88 100644 --- a/drivers/dma-buf/st-dma-fence-unwrap.c +++ b/drivers/dma-buf/st-dma-fence-unwrap.c @@ -437,7 +437,7 @@ static void test_unwrap_merge_order(struct kunit *test) KUNIT_FAIL(test, "Not all fences seen!");
dma_fence_put(a2); - return; + dma_fence_put(c2);
error_put_a1: dma_fence_put(a1);
On Tue, 03 Nov 2026 06:44:57 +0000, Wentao Liang wrote:
The merge order test creates an array and a chain as inputs to dma_fence_unwrap_merge(). The merge takes references to the underlying fences but does not consume the input containers. The success path only puts the merged result, leaking both the input array and the outer chain, which owns the inner chain.
Put the outer chain after checking the merged result and fall through to the existing array cleanup on success as well as failure.
The dma-buf-fence-unwrap KUnit suite passes all 11 tests under UML.
Fixes: b1cce631e61f ("dma-buf: add selftest for fence order after merge") Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org Assisted-by: DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash and OpenAI Codex Signed-off-by: Wentao Liang vulab@iscas.ac.cn
drivers/dma-buf/st-dma-fence-unwrap.c | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
Multiple things here: 1. Your team ignored completely previous feedback. Multiple times.
2. You use multiple identities with this email, thus I doubt that we speak with an actual person.
3. Your bot does not even bother running checkpatch, right?
4. Nothing of this was reproduced nor tested.
5. Finally, the 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 what you should not do if this was posted in a good faith.
Best regards, Krzysztof
On 11/3/26 08:27, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
On Tue, 03 Nov 2026 06:44:57 +0000, Wentao Liang wrote:
The merge order test creates an array and a chain as inputs to dma_fence_unwrap_merge(). The merge takes references to the underlying fences but does not consume the input containers. The success path only puts the merged result, leaking both the input array and the outer chain, which owns the inner chain.
Put the outer chain after checking the merged result and fall through to the existing array cleanup on success as well as failure.
The dma-buf-fence-unwrap KUnit suite passes all 11 tests under UML.
Fixes: b1cce631e61f ("dma-buf: add selftest for fence order after merge") Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org
Completely agree to what Krzysztof wrote below, but additionally a <256 byte memory leak in a non-production unit test is not something I would consider relevant for backporting.
Unless Greg or Sasha have different opinions please don't automatically send everything with CC stable@vger.kernel.org.
Regards, Christian.
Assisted-by: DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash and OpenAI Codex Signed-off-by: Wentao Liang vulab@iscas.ac.cn
drivers/dma-buf/st-dma-fence-unwrap.c | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
Multiple things here:
Your team ignored completely previous feedback. Multiple times.
You use multiple identities with this email, thus I doubt that we speak with an actual person.
Your bot does not even bother running checkpatch, right?
Nothing of this was reproduced nor tested.
Finally, the 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 what you should not do if this was posted in a good faith.
Best regards, Krzysztof
linaro-mm-sig@lists.linaro.org
-
Christian König -
Krzysztof Kozlowski -
Wentao Liang