linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] clocksource: Do not drop unheld reference on device node

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: <20131125090439.GC22043@ulmo.nvidia.com>
Date:	Mon, 25 Nov 2013 10:04:40 +0100
From:	Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@...il.com>
To:	Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@...aro.org>
Cc:	Uwe Kleine-König 
	<u.kleine-koenig@...gutronix.de>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
	Rob Herring <rob.herring@...xeda.com>,
	devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	David Brown <davidb@...eaurora.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] clocksource: Do not drop unheld reference on device node

On Mon, Nov 25, 2013 at 09:57:39AM +0100, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
> On 11/25/2013 08:29 AM, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
> >Hello Daniel,
> >
> >On Sun, Nov 24, 2013 at 10:28:15PM +0100, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
> >>On 11/22/2013 08:22 PM, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
> >>>On Fri, Nov 22, 2013 at 05:31:46PM +0100, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
> >>>>On 11/22/2013 05:16 PM, Thierry Reding wrote:
> >>>>>On Sat, Oct 19, 2013 at 12:49:48AM +0200, Thierry Reding wrote:
> >>>>Yes. Sounds like I missed it.
> >>>>
> >>>>This regression has been introduced by:
> >>>>
> >>>>commit 326e31eebe61dc838e031ea16968b2cfb43443e3
> >>>>Author: Uwe Kleine-König <u.kleine-koenig@...gutronix.de>
> >>>>Date:   Tue Oct 1 11:00:53 2013 +0200
> >>>>
> >>>>     clocksource: Put nodes passed to CLOCKSOURCE_OF_DECLARE
> >>>>callbacks centrally
> >>>>
> >>>>     Instead of letting each driver call of_node_put do it centrally in the
> >>>>     loop that also calls the CLOCKSOURCE_OF_DECLARE callbacks. This is less
> >>>>     prone to error and also moves getting and putting the references
> >>>>into the
> >>>>     same function.
> >>>>
> >>>>     Consequently all respective of_node_put calls in drivers are removed.
> >>>>
> >>>>     Signed-off-by: Uwe Kleine-König <u.kleine-koenig@...gutronix.de>
> >>>>     Signed-off-by: Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@...aro.org>
> >>>>     Acked-by: David Brown <davidb@...eaurora.org>
> >>>Still all but the hook in clocksource_of_init of this commit was
> >>>correct, right? (Well, but this buggy hunk makes the commit log wrong.)
> >>
> >>I don't understand your comment, can you elaborate ?
> >My patch added an of_node_put in clocksource_of_init and dropped several
> >of_node_puts in drivers. This thread is about the first being wrong. My
> >question was if dropping the others was correct.
> 
> Yes, Thierry's patch removes the of_node_puts but I am also wondering if we
> shouldn't just revert the patch 326e31eebe61dc838e instead.

I don't think that's necessary. Dropping the other of_node_put()s looks
like the right thing to do. They drop a reference that they haven't
taken themselves, which is usually not correct. I can't find anything
wrong with the rest of that commit.

Thierry

Content of type "application/pgp-signature" skipped