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: 28+ 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 ` [PATCH 1/7] phy: brcmstb-sata: " Julia Lawall
2015-11-17 1:38 ` Brian Norris
2015-11-17 6:12 ` Julia Lawall
2015-11-17 17:44 ` Brian Norris [this message]
2015-11-17 17:48 ` Julia Lawall
2015-11-17 18:30 ` Brian Norris
2015-11-17 18:34 ` Brian Norris
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 20:39 ` Julia Lawall
2015-11-19 18:44 ` Rob Herring
2015-11-19 19:14 ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2015-11-27 14:14 ` [PATCH 1/7] phy: brcmstb-sata: add missing of_node_put Kishon Vijay Abraham I
2015-11-16 11:33 ` [PATCH 2/7] phy: mt65xx-usb3: " Julia Lawall
2015-11-16 11:33 ` [PATCH 3/7] phy: berlin-sata: " Julia Lawall
2015-11-19 20:48 ` Sebastian Hesselbarth
2015-11-16 11:33 ` [PATCH 4/7] phy: rockchip-usb: " Julia Lawall
2015-11-18 19:27 ` Heiko Stübner
2015-11-18 19:31 ` Brian Norris
2015-11-18 19:46 ` Heiko Stübner
2015-11-18 20:38 ` Julia Lawall
2015-11-18 20:40 ` 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 ` [PATCH 6/7] phy: miphy365x: " Julia Lawall
2015-11-16 11:33 ` [PATCH 7/7] phy: cygnus: pcie: " Julia Lawall
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=andrew@lunn.ch \
--cc=bhelgaas@google.com \
--cc=f.fainelli@gmail.com \
--cc=gregory.0xf0@gmail.com \
--cc=jason@lakedaemon.net \
--cc=julia.lawall@lip6.fr \
--cc=kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=kishon@ti.com \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux@arm.linux.org.uk \
--cc=thomas.petazzoni@free-electrons.com \
/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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox