linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH V2 2/2] of: remove /proc/device-tree

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CACxGe6vg2iya7yo_sCfK9HuisJy0-KN9WR-jUO4nZh-A2A+m4Q@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Fri, 22 Mar 2013 23:44:30 +0000
From:	Grant Likely <grant.likely@...retlab.ca>
To:	Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>
Cc:	Nathan Fontenot <nfont@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
	devicetree-discuss <devicetree-discuss@...ts.ozlabs.org>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Rob Herring <rob.herring@...xeda.com>,
	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V2 2/2] of: remove /proc/device-tree

On Fri, Mar 22, 2013 at 7:29 PM, Benjamin Herrenschmidt
<benh@...nel.crashing.org> wrote:
> On Fri, 2013-03-22 at 13:03 -0500, Nathan Fontenot wrote:
>> We don't ever free old property values, mainly I assume since we don't keep
>> reference counts and can't know when it is safe to do so. The problem I
>> am starting to see on pseries is that we are getting very large properties.
>> One of the biggest culprits is the property on pseries systems to describe
>> the memory on the system in the device tree. These are big and getting
>> bigger as memory increases, additionally this property is update every
>> time memory is DLPAR added or removed from the system which can lead to
>> leaving a bunch of memory that should be free'ed.
>>
>> Given that, is there (or has there been) any discussion on adding reference
>> counts to properties in the device tree? With the myriad ways to get at
>> the value of a property this may not be feasible but I would like to hear
>> any thoughts from the community.
>
> My assumption was always that the lifetime of property values is tied
> the the lifetime of the node they are in. IE, we wouldn't free a
> property removed from a node but we could free all properties when
> the node goes away...
>
> Not the best but would do...
>
> refcount of properties, well ... Grant, do we get kobjects for them with
> the sysfs stuff ? That could do the trick...

No. Kobjects are only created for the nodes.

g.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/