On Mon, 2018-10-08 at 15:12 +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > Hi Philipp, > > On Mon, Oct 8, 2018 at 2:56 PM Philipp Zabel <p.zabel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Mon, 2018-10-08 at 13:14 +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > > > Calling of_node_put() decreases the reference count of a device tree > > > object, and may free some data. > > > > > > However, the of_phandle_args structure embedding it is passed to > > > reset_controller_dev.of_xlate() after that, so it may still be accessed. > > > > > > Move the call to of_node_put() down to fix this. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert+renesas@xxxxxxxxx> > > > --- > > > drivers/reset/core.c | 15 ++++++++------- > > > 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-) > > > > > > diff --git a/drivers/reset/core.c b/drivers/reset/core.c > > > index 225e34c56b94a2e3..bc9df10d31b4bae1 100644 > > > --- a/drivers/reset/core.c > > > +++ b/drivers/reset/core.c > > > @@ -496,27 +496,28 @@ struct reset_control *__of_reset_control_get(struct device_node *node, [...] > > > /* reset_list_mutex also protects the rcdev's reset_control list */ > > > rstc = __reset_control_get_internal(rcdev, rstc_id, shared); > > > > > > +out: > > > + of_node_put(args.np); > > > mutex_unlock(&reset_list_mutex); > > > > Thank you for the patch. I'd like to move of_node_put after mutex_unlock > > for symmetry. If you agree, I can switch the two when applying. > > No objection, thanks! Applied to reset/next with that change. regards Philipp
