On 2019-12-11 17:48:54 [-0600], Rob Herring wrote:
> > - if (phandle_cache) {
> > - if (phandle_cache[masked_handle] &&
> > - handle == phandle_cache[masked_handle]->phandle)
> > - np = phandle_cache[masked_handle];
> > - if (np && of_node_check_flag(np, OF_DETACHED)) {
> > - WARN_ON(1); /* did not uncache np on node removal */
> > - of_node_put(np);
> > - phandle_cache[masked_handle] = NULL;
> > - np = NULL;
> > - }
> > + if (phandle_cache[handle_hash] &&
> > + handle == phandle_cache[handle_hash]->phandle)
> > + np = phandle_cache[handle_hash];
> > + if (np && of_node_check_flag(np, OF_DETACHED)) {
> > + WARN_ON(1); /* did not uncache np on node removal */
>
> BTW, I don't think this check is even valid. If we failed to detach
> and remove the node from the cache, then we could be accessing np
> after freeing it.
this is kmalloc()ed memory which is always valid. If the memory is
already re-used then
handle == phandle_cache[handle_hash]->phandle
will fail (the check, not the memory access itself). If the check
remains valid then you can hope for the OF_DETACHED flag to trigger the
warning.
> Rob
Sebastian
