[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20141009202733.GD5493@codeaurora.org>
Date: Thu, 9 Oct 2014 13:27:33 -0700
From: Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...eaurora.org>
To: Tomeu Vizoso <tomeu.vizoso@...labora.com>
Cc: Mike Turquette <mturquette@...aro.org>,
Javier Martinez Canillas <javier.martinez@...labora.co.uk>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 3/8] clk: Don't try to use a struct clk* after it
could have been freed
On 10/09, Tomeu Vizoso wrote:
> As __clk_release could call kfree on clk and then we wouldn't have a safe way
> of getting the module that owns the clock.
>
> Signed-off-by: Tomeu Vizoso <tomeu.vizoso@...labora.com>
It would be good to mark this as a "Fixes:".
> ---
> drivers/clk/clk.c | 6 ++++--
> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/clk/clk.c b/drivers/clk/clk.c
> index d0712b7..40aa7ad 100644
> --- a/drivers/clk/clk.c
> +++ b/drivers/clk/clk.c
> @@ -2268,14 +2268,16 @@ int __clk_get(struct clk *clk)
>
> void __clk_put(struct clk *clk)
> {
> + struct module *owner;
> +
> if (!clk || WARN_ON_ONCE(IS_ERR(clk)))
> return;
>
> clk_prepare_lock();
> + owner = clk->owner;
> kref_put(&clk->ref, __clk_release);
> + module_put(owner);
> clk_prepare_unlock();
> -
> - module_put(clk->owner);
We don't need to move this call under the prepare lock though, right?
--
Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum,
a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project
--
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists