Hi Grant, On Nov 15, 2013, at 8:27 AM, Grant Likely wrote: > On Thu, 14 Nov 2013 10:51:05 +0100, Pantelis Antoniou <panto@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> Hi Grant, >> >> On Nov 14, 2013, at 2:44 AM, Grant Likely wrote: >> >>> On Wed, 13 Nov 2013 10:03:37 +0100, Pantelis Antoniou <panto@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>> On Nov 13, 2013, at 2:34 AM, Grant Likely wrote: >>>>> On Tue, 12 Nov 2013 11:39:08 +0100, Pantelis Antoniou <panto@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>>>>> On Tue, 5 Nov 2013 19:50:16 +0200, Pantelis Antoniou <panto@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>>>>>> + } else { >>>>>>>> + pr_warn("%s: node %p cannot be freed; memory is gone\n", >>>>>>>> + __func__, node); >>>>>>>> + } >>>>>>>> +} >>>>>>> >>>>>>> All of the above is potentially dangerous. There is no way to determine >>>>>>> if anything still holds a reference to a node. The proper way to handle >>>>>>> removal of properties is to have a release method when the last >>>>>>> of_node_put is called. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> This is safe, and expected to be called only on a dynamically created tree, >>>>>> that's what all the checks against OF_DYNAMIC guard against. >>>>>> >>>>>> It is not ever meant to be called on an arbitrary tree, created by unflattening >>>>>> a blob. >>>>> >>>>> I am talking about when being used on a dynamic tree. The problem is >>>>> when a driver or other code holds a reference to a dynamic nodes, but >>>>> doesn't release it correctly. The memory must not be freed until all of >>>>> the references are relased. OF_DYNAMIC doesn't actually help in that >>>>> case, and it is the reason for of_node_get()/of_node_put() >>>>> >>>> >>>> I know, but even that is not enough. of_node_get()/of_node_put() handles the >>>> case of references to the nodes, but not what happens with references to >>>> properties. deadprops is mitigating the problem somewhat, but if we're going >>>> to go to all the trouble of kobjectification let's do the props as well. >>>> >>>> of_get_property could be modified to return a devm_kmalloced copy of the real >>>> property and that would deal with most of the callers. Of course for >>>> the small sized scalar data we can avoid the copy. >>>> >>>> By using the devm_* interface we also avoid having to mess too much with the callers. >>>> >>>> I.e. what about something like devm_of_get_property()? >>> >>> Reference counting is already a horrible pain to keep correct. I don't >>> see a better way to handle it in the dynamic case, so we're stuck with >>> it, but I don't want to make it any harder. Adding ref counting to >>> properties will make it harder than it already is to get the code right. >>> I'm absolutely fine with a little bit of wasted memory in the form of >>> deadprops when the alternative is so horrible. References at the node >>> level is enough granularity. >>> >>> I don't think kduping the property is the solution either. I strongly >>> suspect that will be far more expensive than the deadprop solution. >>> >> >> As long as we can live with deadprops all is fine. Perhaps a devm_of_get_property() >> makes sense for new drivers though? What do you think? Perhaps copying to a >> user supplied buffer as well? > > I still don't think it is necessary. The device lifetime should always > be shorter than the node lifetime. > >> It's a kind of drag. That means you get handed a device_node pointer you are not >> able to free it without having the blob along with the container/accessor of it. >> I.e. For the normal case where the blob comes from a request_firmware() call >> You have to keep the firmware structure around. >> >> Depending on what other method you're going to use tends to make the code a little >> bit messier. > > Understood. Stick with keeping the blob around for now. It can be > reworkd in the future if necessary since there are no associated > userspace ABI issues. > > g. OK, will do. Regards -- Pantelis-- 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