[PATCH] soc: samsung: exynos-pmu: fix reference leak in exynos_get_pmu_regmap_by_phandle()

[Krzysztof Kozlowski]

On Sun, 28 Sept 2025 at 12:51, Ma Ke <make24 at iscas.ac.cn> wrote:
>
> In exynos_get_pmu_regmap_by_phandle(), driver_find_device_by_of_node()
> utilizes driver_find_device_by_fwnode() which internally calls
> driver_find_device() to locate the matching device.
> driver_find_device() increments the reference count of the found
> device by calling get_device(), but exynos_get_pmu_regmap_by_phandle()
> fails to call put_device() to decrement the reference count before
> returning. This results in a reference count leak of the device each
> time exynos_get_pmu_regmap_by_phandle() is executed, which may prevent
> the device from being properly released and cause a memory leak.
>
> Found by code review.
>
> Cc: stable at vger.kernel.org
> Fixes: 0b7c6075022c ("soc: samsung: exynos-pmu: Add regmap support for SoCs that protect PMU regs")
> Signed-off-by: Ma Ke <make24 at iscas.ac.cn>
> ---
>  drivers/soc/samsung/exynos-pmu.c | 6 +++++-
>  1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/soc/samsung/exynos-pmu.c b/drivers/soc/samsung/exynos-pmu.c
> index a77288f49d24..ed903a2dd416 100644
> --- a/drivers/soc/samsung/exynos-pmu.c
> +++ b/drivers/soc/samsung/exynos-pmu.c
> @@ -302,6 +302,7 @@ struct regmap *exynos_get_pmu_regmap_by_phandle(struct device_node *np,
>  {
>         struct device_node *pmu_np;
>         struct device *dev;
> +       struct regmap *regmap;
>
>         if (propname)
>                 pmu_np = of_parse_phandle(np, propname, 0);
> @@ -325,7 +326,10 @@ struct regmap *exynos_get_pmu_regmap_by_phandle(struct device_node *np,
>         if (!dev)
>                 return ERR_PTR(-EPROBE_DEFER);
>
> -       return syscon_node_to_regmap(pmu_np);
> +       regmap = syscon_node_to_regmap(pmu_np);
> +       put_device(regmap);

Are you sure this code actually compiles?


> +
> +       return regmap;

So is regmap valid now, if you drop the reference? I think no. I also
think you should check the purpose of this function. I don't see a
leak here, not at callers place. Anyway build failures are my main
concern.