linux-kernel - Usage of for_each_child_of

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-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <5259B6F8.3070701@roeck-us.net>
Date:	Sat, 12 Oct 2013 13:54:16 -0700
From:	Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>
To:	"devicetree@...r.kernel.org" <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>
CC:	Grant Likely <grant.likely@...aro.org>,
	Rob Herring <rob.herring@...xeda.com>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Usage of for_each_child_of_node()

Hi all,

for_each_child_of_node() and similar functions increase the refcount
on each returned node and expect the caller to release the node by
calling of_node_put() when done.

Looking through the kernel code, it appears this is hardly ever done,
if at all. Some code even calls of_node_get() on returned nodes again.

I guess this doesn't matter in cases where devicetree is a static entity.
However, this is not (or no longer) the case with devicetree overlays,
or more generically in cases where devicetree nodes are added and
removed dynamically.

Fundamental question: Would patches to fix this problem be accepted upstream ?

Or, of course, stepping a bit back: Am I missing something essential ?

Thanks,
Guenter
--
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/