From: Brian Norris <computersforpeace@gmail.com>
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/7] phy: brcmstb-sata: add missing of_node_put
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 2015 17:44:30 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20151117174430.GA8456@google.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.02.1511170711340.2045@localhost6.localdomain6>
On Tue, Nov 17, 2015 at 07:12:22AM +0100, Julia Lawall wrote:
> On Mon, 16 Nov 2015, Brian Norris wrote:
> >
> > This reminds me of a potential problem I'm looking at in other
> > subsystems: from code reading (I haven't seen any issues in practice,
> > probably because I don't use OF_DYNAMIC) it looks like device-creating
> > infrastructure like the PHY subsystem should be acquiring a reference to
> > the device_node when they stash it away. But drivers/phy/phy-core.c does
> > not do this, AFAICT.
> >
> > See phy_create(), which does
> >
> > phy->dev.of_node = node ?: dev->of_node;
> >
> > and later might reuse this of_node pointer, even though it never called
> > of_node_get() on this node.
> >
> > Potential patch to fix this (not tested).
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Brian Norris <computersforpeace@gmail.com>
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/phy/phy-core.c b/drivers/phy/phy-core.c
> > index fc48fac003a6..8df29caeeef9 100644
> > --- a/drivers/phy/phy-core.c
> > +++ b/drivers/phy/phy-core.c
> > @@ -697,6 +697,7 @@ struct phy *phy_create(struct device *dev, struct device_node *node,
> > phy->dev.class = phy_class;
> > phy->dev.parent = dev;
> > phy->dev.of_node = node ?: dev->of_node;
> > + of_node_get(phy->dev.of_node);
>
> Why not put of_node_get around dev->of_node?
Like this?
phy->dev.of_node = node ?: of_node_get(dev->of_node);
Or this?
phy->dev.of_node = of_node_get(node ?: dev->of_node);
The former wouldn't do what I proposed; if this PHY device is created
with a sub-node of 'dev' rather than dev->of_node, then the caller will
pass it in as the 2nd argument to phy_create (i.e., 'node'), and then I
expect it's the PHY core's responsibility to refcount it.
I'd be fine with the latter. Looks a little better, I suppose.
If my understanding is correct, I'll send a proper patch to do the
latter.
Regards,
Brian
> julia
>
> > phy->id = id;
> > phy->ops = ops;
> >
> > @@ -726,6 +727,7 @@ struct phy *phy_create(struct device *dev, struct device_node *node,
> > return phy;
> >
> > put_dev:
> > + of_node_put(phy->dev.of_node);
> > put_device(&phy->dev); /* calls phy_release() which frees resources */
> > return ERR_PTR(ret);
> >
> > @@ -775,6 +777,7 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(devm_phy_create);
> > */
> > void phy_destroy(struct phy *phy)
> > {
> > + of_node_put(phy->dev.of_node);
> > pm_runtime_disable(&phy->dev);
> > device_unregister(&phy->dev);
> > }
> > --
> > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kernel-janitors" in
> > the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> >
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: computersforpeace@gmail.com (Brian Norris)
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: [PATCH 1/7] phy: brcmstb-sata: add missing of_node_put
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 2015 09:44:30 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20151117174430.GA8456@google.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.02.1511170711340.2045@localhost6.localdomain6>
On Tue, Nov 17, 2015 at 07:12:22AM +0100, Julia Lawall wrote:
> On Mon, 16 Nov 2015, Brian Norris wrote:
> >
> > This reminds me of a potential problem I'm looking at in other
> > subsystems: from code reading (I haven't seen any issues in practice,
> > probably because I don't use OF_DYNAMIC) it looks like device-creating
> > infrastructure like the PHY subsystem should be acquiring a reference to
> > the device_node when they stash it away. But drivers/phy/phy-core.c does
> > not do this, AFAICT.
> >
> > See phy_create(), which does
> >
> > phy->dev.of_node = node ?: dev->of_node;
> >
> > and later might reuse this of_node pointer, even though it never called
> > of_node_get() on this node.
> >
> > Potential patch to fix this (not tested).
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Brian Norris <computersforpeace@gmail.com>
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/phy/phy-core.c b/drivers/phy/phy-core.c
> > index fc48fac003a6..8df29caeeef9 100644
> > --- a/drivers/phy/phy-core.c
> > +++ b/drivers/phy/phy-core.c
> > @@ -697,6 +697,7 @@ struct phy *phy_create(struct device *dev, struct device_node *node,
> > phy->dev.class = phy_class;
> > phy->dev.parent = dev;
> > phy->dev.of_node = node ?: dev->of_node;
> > + of_node_get(phy->dev.of_node);
>
> Why not put of_node_get around dev->of_node?
Like this?
phy->dev.of_node = node ?: of_node_get(dev->of_node);
Or this?
phy->dev.of_node = of_node_get(node ?: dev->of_node);
The former wouldn't do what I proposed; if this PHY device is created
with a sub-node of 'dev' rather than dev->of_node, then the caller will
pass it in as the 2nd argument to phy_create (i.e., 'node'), and then I
expect it's the PHY core's responsibility to refcount it.
I'd be fine with the latter. Looks a little better, I suppose.
If my understanding is correct, I'll send a proper patch to do the
latter.
Regards,
Brian
> julia
>
> > phy->id = id;
> > phy->ops = ops;
> >
> > @@ -726,6 +727,7 @@ struct phy *phy_create(struct device *dev, struct device_node *node,
> > return phy;
> >
> > put_dev:
> > + of_node_put(phy->dev.of_node);
> > put_device(&phy->dev); /* calls phy_release() which frees resources */
> > return ERR_PTR(ret);
> >
> > @@ -775,6 +777,7 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(devm_phy_create);
> > */
> > void phy_destroy(struct phy *phy)
> > {
> > + of_node_put(phy->dev.of_node);
> > pm_runtime_disable(&phy->dev);
> > device_unregister(&phy->dev);
> > }
> > --
> > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kernel-janitors" in
> > the body of a message to majordomo at vger.kernel.org
> > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> >
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Brian Norris <computersforpeace@gmail.com>
To: Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@lip6.fr>
Cc: Kishon Vijay Abraham I <kishon@ti.com>,
kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org,
Gregory Fong <gregory.0xf0@gmail.com>,
Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@gmail.com>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@arm.linux.org.uk>,
Thomas Petazzoni <thomas.petazzoni@free-electrons.com>,
Andrew Lunn <andrew@lunn.ch>, Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@google.com>,
Jason Cooper <jason@lakedaemon.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/7] phy: brcmstb-sata: add missing of_node_put
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 2015 09:44:30 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20151117174430.GA8456@google.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.02.1511170711340.2045@localhost6.localdomain6>
On Tue, Nov 17, 2015 at 07:12:22AM +0100, Julia Lawall wrote:
> On Mon, 16 Nov 2015, Brian Norris wrote:
> >
> > This reminds me of a potential problem I'm looking at in other
> > subsystems: from code reading (I haven't seen any issues in practice,
> > probably because I don't use OF_DYNAMIC) it looks like device-creating
> > infrastructure like the PHY subsystem should be acquiring a reference to
> > the device_node when they stash it away. But drivers/phy/phy-core.c does
> > not do this, AFAICT.
> >
> > See phy_create(), which does
> >
> > phy->dev.of_node = node ?: dev->of_node;
> >
> > and later might reuse this of_node pointer, even though it never called
> > of_node_get() on this node.
> >
> > Potential patch to fix this (not tested).
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Brian Norris <computersforpeace@gmail.com>
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/phy/phy-core.c b/drivers/phy/phy-core.c
> > index fc48fac003a6..8df29caeeef9 100644
> > --- a/drivers/phy/phy-core.c
> > +++ b/drivers/phy/phy-core.c
> > @@ -697,6 +697,7 @@ struct phy *phy_create(struct device *dev, struct device_node *node,
> > phy->dev.class = phy_class;
> > phy->dev.parent = dev;
> > phy->dev.of_node = node ?: dev->of_node;
> > + of_node_get(phy->dev.of_node);
>
> Why not put of_node_get around dev->of_node?
Like this?
phy->dev.of_node = node ?: of_node_get(dev->of_node);
Or this?
phy->dev.of_node = of_node_get(node ?: dev->of_node);
The former wouldn't do what I proposed; if this PHY device is created
with a sub-node of 'dev' rather than dev->of_node, then the caller will
pass it in as the 2nd argument to phy_create (i.e., 'node'), and then I
expect it's the PHY core's responsibility to refcount it.
I'd be fine with the latter. Looks a little better, I suppose.
If my understanding is correct, I'll send a proper patch to do the
latter.
Regards,
Brian
> julia
>
> > phy->id = id;
> > phy->ops = ops;
> >
> > @@ -726,6 +727,7 @@ struct phy *phy_create(struct device *dev, struct device_node *node,
> > return phy;
> >
> > put_dev:
> > + of_node_put(phy->dev.of_node);
> > put_device(&phy->dev); /* calls phy_release() which frees resources */
> > return ERR_PTR(ret);
> >
> > @@ -775,6 +777,7 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(devm_phy_create);
> > */
> > void phy_destroy(struct phy *phy)
> > {
> > + of_node_put(phy->dev.of_node);
> > pm_runtime_disable(&phy->dev);
> > device_unregister(&phy->dev);
> > }
> > --
> > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kernel-janitors" in
> > the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> >
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-11-17 17:44 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 86+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2015-11-16 11:33 [PATCH 0/7] add missing of_node_put Julia Lawall
2015-11-16 11:33 ` Julia Lawall
2015-11-16 11:33 ` Julia Lawall
2015-11-16 11:33 ` [PATCH 1/7] phy: brcmstb-sata: " Julia Lawall
2015-11-16 11:33 ` Julia Lawall
2015-11-16 11:33 ` Julia Lawall
2015-11-17 1:38 ` Brian Norris
2015-11-17 1:38 ` Brian Norris
2015-11-17 1:38 ` Brian Norris
2015-11-17 6:12 ` Julia Lawall
2015-11-17 6:12 ` Julia Lawall
2015-11-17 6:12 ` Julia Lawall
2015-11-17 17:44 ` Brian Norris [this message]
2015-11-17 17:44 ` Brian Norris
2015-11-17 17:44 ` Brian Norris
2015-11-17 17:48 ` Julia Lawall
2015-11-17 17:48 ` Julia Lawall
2015-11-17 17:48 ` Julia Lawall
2015-11-17 18:30 ` Brian Norris
2015-11-17 18:30 ` Brian Norris
2015-11-17 18:30 ` Brian Norris
2015-11-17 18:34 ` Brian Norris
2015-11-17 18:34 ` Brian Norris
2015-11-17 18:34 ` Brian Norris
2015-11-17 22:33 ` Julia Lawall
2015-11-17 22:33 ` Julia Lawall
2015-11-17 22:33 ` Julia Lawall
2015-11-18 19:05 ` device_node lifetime (was: Re: [PATCH 1/7] phy: brcmstb-sata: add missing of_node_put) Brian Norris
2015-11-18 19:05 ` Brian Norris
2015-11-18 19:05 ` Brian Norris
2015-11-18 19:05 ` Brian Norris
2015-11-18 20:39 ` Julia Lawall
2015-11-18 20:39 ` Julia Lawall
2015-11-18 20:39 ` Julia Lawall
2015-11-18 20:39 ` Julia Lawall
2015-11-19 18:44 ` Rob Herring
2015-11-19 18:44 ` Rob Herring
2015-11-19 18:44 ` Rob Herring
2015-11-19 19:14 ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2015-11-19 19:14 ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2015-11-19 19:14 ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2015-11-19 22:58 ` Rob Herring
2015-11-27 14:14 ` [PATCH 1/7] phy: brcmstb-sata: add missing of_node_put Kishon Vijay Abraham I
2015-11-27 14:26 ` Kishon Vijay Abraham I
2015-11-27 14:14 ` Kishon Vijay Abraham I
2015-11-16 11:33 ` [PATCH 2/7] phy: mt65xx-usb3: " Julia Lawall
2015-11-16 11:33 ` Julia Lawall
2015-11-16 11:33 ` Julia Lawall
2015-11-16 11:33 ` [PATCH 3/7] phy: berlin-sata: " Julia Lawall
2015-11-16 11:33 ` Julia Lawall
2015-11-19 20:48 ` Sebastian Hesselbarth
2015-11-19 20:48 ` Sebastian Hesselbarth
2015-11-16 11:33 ` [PATCH 4/7] phy: rockchip-usb: " Julia Lawall
2015-11-16 11:33 ` Julia Lawall
2015-11-16 11:33 ` Julia Lawall
2015-11-18 19:27 ` Heiko Stübner
2015-11-18 19:27 ` Heiko Stübner
2015-11-18 19:27 ` Heiko Stübner
2015-11-18 19:31 ` Brian Norris
2015-11-18 19:31 ` Brian Norris
2015-11-18 19:31 ` Brian Norris
2015-11-18 19:46 ` Heiko Stübner
2015-11-18 19:46 ` Heiko Stübner
2015-11-18 19:46 ` Heiko Stübner
2015-11-18 19:46 ` Heiko Stübner
2015-11-18 20:38 ` Julia Lawall
2015-11-18 20:38 ` Julia Lawall
2015-11-18 20:38 ` Julia Lawall
2015-11-18 20:40 ` Heiko Stübner
2015-11-18 20:40 ` Heiko Stübner
2015-11-18 20:40 ` Heiko Stübner
2015-11-18 21:42 ` Heiko Stübner
2015-11-18 21:42 ` Heiko Stübner
2015-11-18 21:42 ` Heiko Stübner
2015-11-16 11:33 ` [PATCH 5/7] phy: miphy28lp: " Julia Lawall
2015-11-16 11:33 ` Julia Lawall
2015-11-16 11:33 ` Julia Lawall
2015-11-16 11:33 ` [PATCH 6/7] phy: miphy365x: " Julia Lawall
2015-11-16 11:33 ` Julia Lawall
2015-11-16 11:33 ` Julia Lawall
2015-11-16 11:33 ` [PATCH 7/7] phy: cygnus: pcie: " Julia Lawall
2015-11-16 11:33 ` Julia Lawall
2015-11-16 11:33 ` Julia Lawall
2015-11-16 17:12 ` Ray Jui
2015-11-16 17:12 ` Ray Jui
2015-11-16 17:12 ` Ray Jui
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20151117174430.GA8456@google.com \
--to=computersforpeace@gmail.com \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.