Re: [PATCH 1/2] device property: do not leak child nodes when using NULL/error pointers

[Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@gmail.com>]

On Fri, Nov 29, 2024 at 04:50:15PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 28, 2024 at 03:04:50PM -0800, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> > On Thu, Nov 28, 2024 at 03:13:16PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > > On Wed, Nov 27, 2024 at 09:39:34PM -0800, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> > > > The documentation to various API calls that locate children for a given
> > > > fwnode (such as fwnode_get_next_available_child_node() or
> > > > device_get_next_child_node()) states that the reference to the node
> > > > passed in "child" argument is dropped unconditionally, however the
> > > > change that added checks for the main node to be NULL or error pointer
> > > > broke this promise.
> > > 
> > > This commit message doesn't explain a use case. Hence it might be just
> > > a documentation issue, please elaborate.
> > 
> > I do not have a specific use case in mind, however the implementation
> > behavior does not match the stated one, and so it makes sense to get it
> > fixed. Otherwise callers would have to add checks to conditionally drop
> > the reference to "child" argument in certain cases, which will
> > complicate caller's code.
> 
> Perhaps this should be somewhere between the cover letter / commit message?

OK, I thought that it was pretty obvious, but I will expand the commit
message to include this.

> 
> > > > Add missing fwnode_handle_put() calls to restore the documented
> > > > behavior.
> 
> ...
> 
> > > >  {
> > > > +	if (IS_ERR_OR_NULL(fwnode) ||
> > > 
> > > Unneeded check as fwnode_has_op() has it already.
> > 
> > Yes, it has, but that is not obvious nor it is a documented behavior of
> > fwnode_has_op().
> 
> Would like to document that then?
> 
> > It also different semantics: it checks whether a fwnode
> > implements a given operation, not whether fwnode is valid. That check is
> > incidental in fwnode_has_op().
> 
> I kinda disagree on this. The invalid fwnode may not have any operations,
> so it's implied and will always be like that.

Yeah, it is clear that we disagree. I agree that invalid fwnode will not
have an operation defined, still checking whether an operation is
supported and whether a node is invalid or not are 2 different
operations to me. But we do not need to argue further.

> 
> > They all are macros so compiler should collapse duplicate checks, but if
> > you feel really strongly about it I can drop IS_ERR_OR_NULL() check.
> 
> Yes, please drop it and rather we want fwnode_has_op() to be documented with
> main purpose and guaranteed side effect (the latter makes no need of
> duplication that I pointed out).

OK.

> 
> > > > +	    !fwnode_has_op(fwnode, get_next_child_node)) {
> > > > +		fwnode_handle_put(child);
> > > > +		return NULL;
> > > > +	}
> 
> ...
> 
> > > > @@ struct fwnode_handle *device_get_next_child_node(const struct device *dev,
> > > >  	const struct fwnode_handle *fwnode = dev_fwnode(dev);
> > > >  	struct fwnode_handle *next;
> > > 
> > > > -	if (IS_ERR_OR_NULL(fwnode))
> > > > +	if (IS_ERR_OR_NULL(fwnode)) {
> > > > +		fwnode_handle_put(child);
> > > >  		return NULL;
> > > > +	}
> > > 
> > > >  	/* Try to find a child in primary fwnode */
> > > >  	next = fwnode_get_next_child_node(fwnode, child);
> > > 
> > > So, why not just moving the original check (w/o dropping the reference) here?
> > > Wouldn't it have the same effect w/o explicit call to the fwnode_handle_put()?
> > 
> > Because if you rely on check in fwnode_get_next_child_node() you would
> > not know if it returned NULL because there are no more children or
> > because the node is invalid. In the latter case you can't dereference
> > fwnode->secondary.
> 
> Yes, so, how does it contradict my proposal?

I guess I misunderstood your proposal then. Could you please explain it
in more detail?

Thanks.

-- 
Dmitry