On Wed, 27 Jan 2016, Pantelis Antoniou wrote:
> Hi Mark,
>
> > On Jan 27, 2016, at 18:21 , Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Jan 27, 2016 at 06:14:00PM +0200, Pantelis Antoniou wrote:
> >> Hi Mark,
> >>
> >>> On Jan 27, 2016, at 18:05 , Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> On Wed, Jan 27, 2016 at 08:50:17PM +0530, Amitoj Kaur Chawla wrote:
> >>>> for_each_child_of_node performs an of_node_get on each iteration, so
> >>>> to break out of the loop an of_node_put is required.
> >>>>
> >>>> Found using Coccinelle. The semantic patch used for this is as follows:
> >>>>
> >>>> // <smpl>
> >>>> @@
> >>>> expression e;
> >>>> local idexpression n;
> >>>> @@
> >>>>
> >>>> for_each_child_of_node(..., n) {
> >>>> ... when != of_node_put(n)
> >>>> when != e = n
> >>>> (
> >>>> return n;
> >>>> |
> >>>> + of_node_put(n);
> >>>> ? return ...;
> >>>> )
> >>>> ...
> >>>> }
> >>>> // </smpl
> >>>>
> >>>> Signed-off-by: Amitoj Kaur Chawla <amitoj1606@xxxxxxxxx>
> >>>> ---
> >>>> drivers/of/resolver.c | 4 +++-
> >>>> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >>>>
> >>>> diff --git a/drivers/of/resolver.c b/drivers/of/resolver.c
> >>>> index 640eb4c..e2a0143 100644
> >>>> --- a/drivers/of/resolver.c
> >>>> +++ b/drivers/of/resolver.c
> >>>> @@ -40,8 +40,10 @@ static struct device_node *__of_find_node_by_full_name(struct device_node *node,
> >>>>
> >>>> for_each_child_of_node(node, child) {
> >>>> found = __of_find_node_by_full_name(child, full_name);
> >>>> - if (found != NULL)
> >>>> + if (found != NULL) {
> >>>> + of_node_put(child);
> >>>> return found;
> >>>> + }
> >>>> }
> >>>>
> >>>> return NULL;
> >>>
> >>> I don't think this is quite right. When child == found, this change will
> >>> leave it decremented.
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >> This patch is bogus.
> >>
> >> __of_find_node_by_full_name() is not taking a reference on the node if found.
> >> This method relies on keeping the reference taken by the loop.
> >
> > Sure. For the found node, that makes sense.
> >
> > However, it also increments the refcount of all the parents, which does
> > not seem correct to me, given they're not put on the return path, and a
> > put of the found node won't decrement its parents refcounts, unless I
> > have missed something.
> >
>
> Hmm, yes. The parent refcounts must be decremented.
So there should be if (found != child) of_node_put(child); ? Another
option would be to duplicate the test and avoid the recursive call.
julia
> > So I believe we are missing some of_node_put logic here.
> >
> >> Taking this into account all of these conccinelle tests are bogus.
> >>
> >> The DT internal method are not using the object model in an obvious manner
> >> and applying these patches without vetting each and everyone is bound to
> >> break things.
> >
> > Agreed.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Mark.
> > --
> > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in
> > the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
>
>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
