On 13/10/2024 13:36, Umang Jain wrote:
> Hi Javier,
>
> Thank you for the patch.
>
> On 13/10/24 4:12 pm, Javier Carrasco wrote:
>> An error path was introduced without including the required call to
>> of_node_put() to decrement the node's refcount and avoid leaking memory.
>> If the call to kzalloc() for 'mgmt' fails, the probe returns without
>> decrementing the refcount.
>>
>> Use the automatic cleanup facility to fix the bug and protect the code
>> against new error paths where the call to of_node_put() might be missing
>> again.
>>
>> Cc: stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> Fixes: 1c9e16b73166 ("staging: vc04_services: vchiq_arm: Split driver
>> static and runtime data")
>> Signed-off-by: Javier Carrasco <javier.carrasco.cruz@xxxxxxxxx>
>> ---
>> drivers/staging/vc04_services/interface/vchiq_arm/vchiq_arm.c | 6 +
>> +----
>> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/staging/vc04_services/interface/vchiq_arm/
>> vchiq_arm.c b/drivers/staging/vc04_services/interface/vchiq_arm/
>> vchiq_arm.c
>> index 27ceaac8f6cc..792cf3a807e1 100644
>> --- a/drivers/staging/vc04_services/interface/vchiq_arm/vchiq_arm.c
>> +++ b/drivers/staging/vc04_services/interface/vchiq_arm/vchiq_arm.c
>> @@ -1332,7 +1332,8 @@ MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(of, vchiq_of_match);
>> static int vchiq_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>> {
>> - struct device_node *fw_node;
>> + struct device_node *fw_node __free(device_node) =
>> + of_find_compatible_node(NULL, NULL, "raspberrypi,bcm2835-
>> firmware");
>
> How about :
>
> + struct device_node *fw_node __free(device_node) = NULL;
>
>> const struct vchiq_platform_info *info;
>> struct vchiq_drv_mgmt *mgmt;
>> int ret;
>> @@ -1341,8 +1342,6 @@ static int vchiq_probe(struct platform_device
>> *pdev)
>> if (!info)
>> return -EINVAL;
>> - fw_node = of_find_compatible_node(NULL, NULL,
>> - "raspberrypi,bcm2835-firmware");
>
> And undo this (i.e. keep the of_find_compatible_node() call here
>
> This helps with readability as there is a NULL check just after this.
>> if (!fw_node) {
>> dev_err(&pdev->dev, "Missing firmware node\n");
>> return -ENOENT;
>> @@ -1353,7 +1352,6 @@ static int vchiq_probe(struct platform_device
>> *pdev)
>> return -ENOMEM;
>> mgmt->fw = devm_rpi_firmware_get(&pdev->dev, fw_node);
>> - of_node_put(fw_node);
>
> And this change remains the same.
>> if (!mgmt->fw)
>> return -EPROBE_DEFER;
>>
>> ---
>> base-commit: d61a00525464bfc5fe92c6ad713350988e492b88
>> change-id: 20241013-vchiq_arm-of_node_put-60a5eaaafd70
>>
>> Best regards,
>
Hi Umang,
Sure, I am fine with that too.
Depending on the maintainer, the preferred approach varies: a single
initialization at the top whenever possible, a declaration right before
its first usage (not my favorite), or a NULL initialization first. I
will send a v2 with the latter i.e. what you suggested, as it keeps
everything more similar to what it used to be.
Thanks and best regards,
Javier Carrasco
