Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] of: overlay: Fix cleanup order in of_overlay_apply()

[Geert Uytterhoeven <geert-Td1EMuHUCqxL1ZNQvxDV9g@public.gmane.org>]

Hi Rob,

On Mon, Dec 4, 2017 at 8:35 PM, Rob Herring <robh+dt-DgEjT+Ai2ygdnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org> wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 4, 2017 at 9:47 AM, Geert Uytterhoeven
> <geert+renesas-gXvu3+zWzMSzQB+pC5nmwQ@public.gmane.org> wrote:
>> The special overlay mutex is taken first, hence it should be released
>> last in the error path.
>>
>> Move "mutex_lock(&of_mutex)" up, as suggested by Frank, as
>> free_overlay_changeset() should be called with that mutex held if any
>> non-trivial cleanup is to be done.
>
> Not holding the of_mutex for of_resolve_phandles is just wrong.
> Without it, a node and new phandle could be added via of_attach_node
> making the max phandle wrong.

After my patch it's held, so what's the problem?

> Now, with the 2 mutexes adjacent, what is the point of even having the
> of_overlay_mutex? Seems like we should just drop it.

Frank?

> I also don't think we really need to hold the mutex during post-apply
> notifiers. It also seems like some steps could be moved outside the
> mutex(es) like init_overlay_changeset().

Perhaps.

Gr{oetje,eeting}s,

                        Geert

--
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert-Td1EMuHUCqxL1ZNQvxDV9g@public.gmane.org

In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
                                -- Linus Torvalds
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in
the body of a message to majordomo-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html