On Sun, 9 Nov 2014, Philipp Zabel wrote: > Hi Guennadi, > > On Fri, Nov 07, 2014 at 11:06:21PM +0100, Guennadi Liakhovetski wrote: > > Hi Philipp, > > > > Thanks for the patch and sorry for a late reply. I did look at your > > patches earlier too, but maybe not attentively enough, or maybe I'm > > misunderstanding something now. In the scan_of_host() function in > > soc_camera.c as of current -next I see: > > > > epn = of_graph_get_next_endpoint(np, epn); > > > > which already looks like a refcount leak to me. If epn != NULL, its > > refcount is incremented, but then immediately the variable gets > > overwritten, and there's no extra copy of that variable to fix this. If > > I'm right, then that bug in itself should be fixed, ideally before your > > patch is applied. But in fact, your patch fixes this, since it modifies > > of_graph_get_next_endpoint() to return with prev's refcount not > > incremented, right? Whereas the of_node_put(epn) later down in > > scan_of_host() decrements refcount of the _next_ endpoint, not the > > previous one, so, it should be left alone? I.e. AFAICT your modification > > to of_graph_get_next_endpoint() fixes soc_camera.c with no further > > modifications to it required? > > You are right. With the old implementation, you'd have to do the > epn = of_graph_get_next_endpoint(np, prev); of_node_put(prev); prev = epn; > dance to avoid leaking a reference to the first endpoint. This series > accidentally fixes soc_camera by changing of_graph_get_next_endpoint > to decrement the reference count itself. Right, so, the patch has to be adjusted not to touch soc_camera.c at all. Thanks Guennadi > > regards > Philipp > -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-media" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
