[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <893d9327-4353-066d-2efa-414a3db4c282@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2018 12:09:03 -0800
From: Frank Rowand <frowand.list@...il.com>
To: Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>
Cc: Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>, mwb@...ux.vnet.ibm.com,
linuxppc-dev <linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org>,
Tyrel Datwyler <tyreld@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
tlfalcon@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, minkim@...ibm.com,
devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] of: __of_detach_node() - remove node from phandle
cache
On 12/18/18 12:01 PM, Rob Herring wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 18, 2018 at 12:57 PM Frank Rowand <frowand.list@...il.com> wrote:
>>
>> On 12/17/18 2:52 AM, Michael Ellerman wrote:
>>> Hi Frank,
>>>
>>> frowand.list@...il.com writes:
>>>> From: Frank Rowand <frank.rowand@...y.com>
>>>>
>>>> Non-overlay dynamic devicetree node removal may leave the node in
>>>> the phandle cache. Subsequent calls to of_find_node_by_phandle()
>>>> will incorrectly find the stale entry. Remove the node from the
>>>> cache.
>>>>
>>>> Add paranoia checks in of_find_node_by_phandle() as a second level
>>>> of defense (do not return cached node if detached, do not add node
>>>> to cache if detached).
>>>>
>>>> Reported-by: Michael Bringmann <mwb@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Frank Rowand <frank.rowand@...y.com>
>>>> ---
>>>
>>> Similarly here can we add:
>>>
>>> Fixes: 0b3ce78e90fc ("of: cache phandle nodes to reduce cost of of_find_node_by_phandle()")
>>
>> Yes, thanks.
>>
>>
>>> Cc: stable@...r.kernel.org # v4.17+
>>
>> Nope, 0b3ce78e90fc does not belong in stable (it is a feature, not a bug
>> fix). So the bug will not be in stable.
>
> 0b3ce78e90fc landed in v4.17, so Michael's line above is correct.
> Annotating it with 4.17 only saves Greg from trying and then emailing
> us to backport this patch as it wouldn't apply.
Thanks for the correction. I was both under-thinking and over-thinking,
ending up with an incorrect answer.
Can you add the Cc: to version 3 patch comments (both 1/2 and 2/2) or do
you want me to re-spin?
-Frank
>
> Rob
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists