> 180 break; ---> Jump out of the loop without releasing it
The device node reference is released behind this for loop.
> 183 if (!of_device_is_available(state_node)) {
> 184 of_node_put(state_node);
This function call was added by the commit “cpuidle: dt: Add missing 'of_node_put()'”
on 2017-06-12.
https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/commit/drivers/cpuidle/dt_idle_states.c?id=b2cdd8e1b54849477a32d820acc2e87828a38f3d
> 185 continue; ---> Release the object references within a loop
I became curious on the applicability of an other coding style
(for a software refactoring) at this place.
How do you think about to achieve the same effect by using a goto statement
instead of two statements in such an if branch?
> 208 of_node_put(state_node); --> Release the object references within a loop
> 209 }
> 210
> 211 of_node_put(state_node); --> There may be double free here.
This information points a recurring challenge out for safe source code analysis.
How would you like to exclude the detection of false positives finally?
> This code pattern is very interesting
Thanks that you think also in this direction.
> and the coccinelle software should also recognize this pattern.
There are some open issues to consider for available analysis tools.
How will corresponding details be clarified then?
Regards,
Markus
