On 2018-04-26 02:44, Frank Rowand wrote: > On 04/25/18 17:32, Frank Rowand wrote: >> Hi Jan, >> >> On 04/24/18 13:58, Frank Rowand wrote: >>> On 04/24/18 10:50, Jan Kiszka wrote: >>>> On 2018-04-24 19:44, Frank Rowand wrote: >>>>> On 04/24/18 09:19, Jan Kiszka wrote: >>>>>> Only the overlay notifier callbacks have a chance to potentially get >>>>>> hold of references to those two resources, but they do not store them. >>>>>> So it is safe to stop the intentional leaking. >>>>>> >>>>>> See also https://lkml.org/lkml/2018/4/23/1063 and following. >>>>>> >>>>>> Signed-off-by: Jan Kiszka <jan.kiszka@xxxxxxxxxxx> >>>>>> --- >>>>>> >>>>>> Ideally, we sort out any remaining worries during the 4.17-rc cycle. >>>>>> >>>>>> drivers/of/overlay.c | 13 ++----------- >>>>>> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-) >>>>>> >>>>>> diff --git a/drivers/of/overlay.c b/drivers/of/overlay.c >>>>>> index b35fe88f1851..3553f1f57a62 100644 >>>>>> --- a/drivers/of/overlay.c >>>>>> +++ b/drivers/of/overlay.c >>>>>> @@ -671,17 +671,8 @@ static void free_overlay_changeset(struct overlay_changeset *ovcs) >>>>>> of_node_put(ovcs->fragments[i].overlay); >>>>>> } >>>>>> kfree(ovcs->fragments); >>>>>> - >>>>>> - /* >>>>>> - * TODO >>>>>> - * >>>>>> - * would like to: kfree(ovcs->overlay_tree); >>>>>> - * but can not since drivers may have pointers into this data >>>>>> - * >>>>>> - * would like to: kfree(ovcs->fdt); >>>>>> - * but can not since drivers may have pointers into this data >>>>>> - */ >>>>>> - >>>>>> + kfree(ovcs->overlay_tree); >>>>>> + kfree(ovcs->fdt); >>>>>> kfree(ovcs); >>>>>> } >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Nack. It is premature to submit this while the conversation is >>>>> continuing in the other thread. >>>>> >>>>> I'll continue the conversation in the other thread. >>>>> >>>> >>>> Well, at least the strongest argument has been resolved now, the >>>> notifier topic. Curious to learn what remains. As I noted, we should >>>> work hard to sort out the API regression prior to the release. >>> >>> Nope, the notifier discussion continues in the other thread. >> >> Thanks for your patience in the other thread. >> >> As I noted there, I am now willing to accept this patch with some >> small changes. Please add a minimal section to >> Documentation/devicetree/overlay-notes.txt about overlay notifiers. >> The most important thing to note there is that the overlay notifiers >> are not allowed to retain any pointers into the overlay devicetree. > > Please also add a function header comment to of_overlay_notifier_register() > in drivers/of/overlay.c that notes the restriction on the overlay notifier. > > >> Also, instead of removing the "TODO" comment in free_overlay_changeset(), >> change it to say something to the effect of "there should be no live pointers >> into ovcs->overlay_tree and ovcs->fdt due to the policy that overlay >> notifiers are not allowed to retain pointers into the overlay devicetree". >> >> I will also add myself to the OPEN FIRMWARE AND DEVICE TREE OVERLAYS >> entry of MAINTAINERS and add a keyword line to catch overlay notifiers. >> >> I am not happy about freeing the overlay devicetree and overlay fdt >> while overlay notifiers are able to retain pointers into the overlay >> devicetree and overlay fdt, but am willing to accept documentation and >> review as a partial protection until the devicetree access APIs can be >> modified to prevent the notifiers from accessing the pointers. The >> volume of overlay notifier patches should be small enough to not be >> a review burden. >> >> -Frank >> >> > Thanks for reconsidering! I'll look into your change requests soon and come up with v2. Jan -- Siemens AG, Corporate Technology, CT RDA IOT SES-DE Corporate Competence Center Embedded Linux -- 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
