[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20190726104547.GA4902@sirena.org.uk>
Date: Fri, 26 Jul 2019 11:45:47 +0100
From: Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
To: Nishka Dasgupta <nishkadg.linux@...il.com>
Cc: lgirdwood@...il.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] regulator: of: Add of_node_put() before return in
function
On Fri, Jul 26, 2019 at 01:02:52PM +0530, Nishka Dasgupta wrote:
> On 24/07/19 9:17 PM, Mark Brown wrote:
> > On Wed, Jul 24, 2019 at 02:02:31PM +0530, Nishka Dasgupta wrote:
> > > The local variable search in regulator_of_get_init_node takes the value
> > > returned by either of_get_child_by_name or of_node_get, both of which
> > > get a node. If this node is not put before returning, it could cause a
> > > memory leak. Hence put search before a mid-loop return statement.
> > > Issue found with Coccinelle.
> > > - if (!strcmp(desc->of_match, name))
> > > + if (!strcmp(desc->of_match, name)) {
> > > + of_node_put(search);
> > > return of_node_get(child);
> > > + }
> > Why not just remove the extra of_node_get() and a comment explaining why
> > it's not needed?
> I'm sorry, I don't think I understand. I'm putting search in this patch; the
> program was already getting child. Should I also return child directly
> instead of getting it again, and continue to put search?
Your new code is dropping a reference then immediately reacquiring one
to return it (introducing a race condition along the way). Why not just
return the already held reference and not call any functions at all?
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (489 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists