Re: [PATCH] mfd: twl6040: fix IRQ action memory leaks during teardown

[Lee Jones]

On Wed, 28 Oct 2026, Guangshuo Li wrote:

> Hi Lee,
> 
> On Wed, 28 Oct 2026 at 00:26, Lee Jones <lee@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, 27 Oct 2026, Guangshuo Li wrote:
> >
> > > twl6040_remove() currently removes the regmap IRQ chip before
> > > removing the MFD child devices. This destroys the IRQ mappings
> > > before the child drivers can release their interrupt handlers.
> > >
> > > The parent driver also registers READY and thermal interrupt
> > > handlers using devm_request_threaded_irq(). These handlers are
> > > normally released by device-managed cleanup after remove returns,
> > > when the corresponding IRQ descriptors have already been removed.
> > >
> > > Consequently, free_irq() cannot find the IRQ descriptors and the
> > > allocated struct irqaction objects are not freed. The associated
> > > IRQ threads also cannot be stopped through the normal cleanup path.
> > >
> > > The probe error paths have a similar issue, as they destroy the IRQ
> > > chip before the device-managed IRQ handlers are released.
> > >
> > > Remove the MFD child devices first, then explicitly free the
> > > parent's READY and thermal IRQ handlers using devm_free_irq()
> > > before removing the regmap IRQ chip.
> > >
> > > Also update the probe error paths to release successfully requested
> > > IRQs before destroying their mappings.
> > >
> > > This issue was found by our static analysis tool under development.
> > >
> > > Fixes: ab7edb149c75 ("mfd: twl6040: Convert to use regmap_irq")
> > > Cc: stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > Signed-off-by: Guangshuo Li <lgs201920130244@xxxxxxxxx>
> > > ---
> > >  drivers/mfd/twl6040.c | 13 +++++++++----
> > >  1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/drivers/mfd/twl6040.c b/drivers/mfd/twl6040.c
> > > index 562a0f939f6e..7b05d21cd17d 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/mfd/twl6040.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/mfd/twl6040.c
> > > @@ -745,7 +745,7 @@ static int twl6040_probe(struct i2c_client *client)
> > >                                       "twl6040_irq_th", twl6040);
> > >       if (ret) {
> > >               dev_err(twl6040->dev, "Thermal IRQ request failed: %d\n", ret);
> > > -             goto readyirq_err;
> > > +             goto thirq_err;
> > >       }
> > >
> > >       /*
> > > @@ -791,10 +791,14 @@ static int twl6040_probe(struct i2c_client *client)
> > >       ret = mfd_add_devices(&client->dev, -1, twl6040->cells, children,
> > >                             NULL, 0, NULL);
> > >       if (ret)
> > > -             goto readyirq_err;
> > > +             goto mfd_err;
> > >
> > >       return 0;
> > >
> > > +mfd_err:
> > > +     devm_free_irq(twl6040->dev, twl6040->irq_th, twl6040);
> > > +thirq_err:
> > > +     devm_free_irq(twl6040->dev, twl6040->irq_ready, twl6040);
> > >  readyirq_err:
> > >       regmap_del_irq_chip(twl6040->irq, twl6040->irq_data);
> > >  gpio_err:
> > > @@ -809,9 +813,10 @@ static void twl6040_remove(struct i2c_client *client)
> > >       if (twl6040->power_count)
> > >               twl6040_power(twl6040, 0);
> > >
> > > -     regmap_del_irq_chip(twl6040->irq, twl6040->irq_data);
> > > -
> > >       mfd_remove_devices(&client->dev);
> > > +     devm_free_irq(twl6040->dev, twl6040->irq_th, twl6040);
> > > +     devm_free_irq(twl6040->dev, twl6040->irq_ready, twl6040);
> > > +     regmap_del_irq_chip(twl6040->irq, twl6040->irq_data);
> >
> > Why not use more devm_*() handlers?
> >
> > devm_regmap_add_irq_chip()
> >
> > devm_free* eeks me out.  The point of devm_*() is that it's managed.
> >
> > >       regulator_bulk_disable(TWL6040_NUM_SUPPLIES, twl6040->supplies);
> > >  }
> > > --
> > > 2.43.0
> > >
> >
> > --
> > Lee Jones
> 
> Thanks for your suggestion. I'll look into using devm_*() APIs in v2.
> 
> Would you prefer that I submit the twl6040 and hi655x-pmic fixes as a
> single patch series in v2, or separately?

I'm not overly concerned.

-- 
Lee Jones