On Wed, May 29, 2024 at 05:52:53PM +0300, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> On Wed, May 29, 2024 at 05:34:41PM +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> > On Wed, May 29, 2024 at 03:40:47AM +0300, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> > > > @@ -286,7 +286,7 @@ static int of_get_coresight_platform_data(struct device *dev,
> > > > }
> > > >
> > > > /* Iterate through each output port to discover topology */
> > > > - while ((ep = of_graph_get_next_endpoint(parent, ep))) {
> > > > + for_each_endpoint_of_node(parent, ep) {
> > > > /*
> > > > * Legacy binding mixes input/output ports under the
> > > > * same parent. So, skip the input ports if we are dealing
> > >
> > > I think there's a bug below. The loop contains
> > >
> > > ret = of_coresight_parse_endpoint(dev, ep, pdata);
> > > if (ret)
> > > return ret;
> > >
> > > which leaks the reference to ep. This is not introduced by this patch,
> >
> > Someone should create for_each_endpoint_of_node_scoped().
> >
> > #define for_each_endpoint_of_node_scoped(parent, child) \
> > for (struct device_node *child __free(device_node) = \
> > of_graph_get_next_endpoint(parent, NULL); child != NULL; \
> > child = of_graph_get_next_endpoint(parent, child))
>
> I was thinking about that too :-) I wondered if we should then bother
> taking and releasing references, given that references to the children
> can't be leaked out of the loop. My reasoning was that the parent
> device_node is guaranteed to be valid throughout the loop, so borrowing
> references to children instead of creating new ones within the loop
> should be fine. This assumes that endpoints and ports can't vanish while
> the parent is there. Thinking further about it, it may not be a safe
> assumption for the future. As we anyway use functions internally that
> create new references, we can as well handle them correctly.
>
> Using this new macro, the loop body would need to call of_node_get() if
> it wants to get a reference out of the loop.
The child pointer is declared local to just the loop so you'd need
create a different function scoped variable. If it's not local to the
loop then we'd end up taking a reference on each iteration and never
releasing anything except on error paths.
> That's the right thing to
> do, and I think it would be less error-prone than having to drop
> references when exiting from the loop as we do today. It would still be
> nice if we could have an API that allows catching this missing
> of_node_get() automatically, but I don't see a simple way to do so at
> the moment.
That's an interesting point.
If we did "function_scope_var = ep;" here then we'd need to take a
second reference as you say. With other cleanup stuff like kfree() it's
very hard to miss it if we forget to call "no_free_ptr(&ep)" because
it's on the success path. It leads to an immediate crash in testing.
But here it's just ref counting so possibly we might miss that sort of
bug.
regards,
dan carpenter
