Re: [PATCH v8] wifi: ath11k: fix resource leak on error in ext IRQ setup

On 7/30/2026 6:54 AM, Jeff Johnson wrote:
> On 7/28/2026 7:00 PM, ZhaoJinming wrote:
>> In ath11k_ahb_config_irq(), when a CE request_irq() fails, the function
>> returns the error immediately without freeing the CE IRQs that were
>> successfully registered in previous loop iterations. The probe error
>> path does not call ath11k_ahb_free_irq() either, so the previously
>> registered CE IRQ handlers remain attached to the interrupt lines and
>> are never released.
>>
>> In ath11k_ahb_config_ext_irq(), when an external request_irq() fails,
>> the error is only logged and the loop continues. The function then
>> returns 0 indicating success, leaving the device in a partially
>> configured state where some external IRQs are not registered. This
>> causes enable_irq()/disable_irq()/free_irq() to be called on
>> unregistered IRQs during runtime and remove/shutdown, triggering
>> WARN_ON(!desc->action), and missing interrupt handlers lead to data
>> loss.
>>
>> Additionally, if alloc_netdev_dummy() fails for a later IRQ group, the
>> function returns -ENOMEM without freeing the ext IRQs and napi_ndev
>> that were successfully set up for earlier groups.
>>
>> Fix all three issues: propagate the error up to the caller and unwind
>> all successfully registered IRQs and allocated resources on failure.
>> Also move ab->irq_num[irq_idx] assignment after request_irq() succeeds
>> in the ext IRQ path to match the CE IRQ path and avoid storing a stale
>> IRQ number on failure.
>>
> 
> Is there a reason you didn't carry forward Baochen's Reviewed-by: tag?
> 
> He first gave the the tag for v4
> 
> In v5 the code was unchanged, and Baochen commented:
> I have given my Reviewed-by: tag in the v4 review. Since v5 is identical to v4
> you should pick it.
> 
> once again:
> Reviewed-by: Baochen Qiang <[email protected]>
> 
> v6 was a trivial change in code. If you had applied his Reviewed-by then I
> would have maintained it for v6. if it had been a bigger diff then it might be
> ok to drop the Reviewed-by, but you'd then want to mention that in the commit
> history
> 
> v7 was unchanged from v6 so it should have had Baochen's RB.
> code in v8 was unchanged from v7 so it should have had Baochen's RB.
> 
> This is another good reason to use b4 for patch maintenance.
> "b4 trailers -u" will accumulate any tags and update your patch.
> 
> That is all advice for next time.
> 
> You don't need to post another version to pick up the RB tag.
> Running b4 in maintainer mode will pick up the one I just added above.
> 
> Baochen, no need to re-review.
> Ramesh, would like you to review.


Looks like my RB was already present on v6. Nevertheless, I've added it 
to v8 as well.


--
Ramesh