linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 3/4] pwm: omap-dmtimer: put_device() after of_find_device_by

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]

Date:   Mon, 11 Nov 2019 21:09:07 +0100
From:   Uwe Kleine-König 
        <u.kleine-koenig@...gutronix.de>
To:     Markus Elfring <Markus.Elfring@....de>
Cc:     linux-pwm@...r.kernel.org,
        Neil Armstrong <narmstrong@...libre.com>,
        Neil Brown <neilb@...e.de>, kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@...il.com>,
        kernel@...gutronix.de
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/4] pwm: omap-dmtimer: put_device() after
 of_find_device_by_node()

On Mon, Nov 11, 2019 at 02:41:58PM +0100, Markus Elfring wrote:
> > This was found by coccicheck:
> >
> > 	drivers/pwm/pwm-omap-dmtimer.c:304:2-8: ERROR: missing put_device;
> > 	call of_find_device_by_node on line 255, but without a corresponding
> > 	object release within this function.
> 
> How do you think about to add a wording according to “imperative mood”
> for your change description?
> https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst?id=31f4f5b495a62c9a8b15b1c3581acd5efeb9af8c#n151

Are you a bot?

> > +++ b/drivers/pwm/pwm-omap-dmtimer.c
> …
> > @@ -352,7 +352,14 @@ static int pwm_omap_dmtimer_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
> …
> >  	pdata->free(dm_timer);
> > -put:
> > +err_request_timer:
> > +
> > +err_timer_property:
> > +err_platdata:
> > +
> > +	put_device(&timer_pdev->dev);
> 
> Would the use of the label “put_device” be more appropriate?
> 
> 
> > +err_find_timer_pdev:
> > +
> >  	of_node_put(timer);
> …
> 
> Would the use of the label “put_node” be better here?
> 
> 
> > @@ -372,6 +379,8 @@ static int pwm_omap_dmtimer_remove(struct platform_device *pdev)
> >
> >  	omap->pdata->free(omap->dm_timer);
> >
> > +	put_device(&omap->dm_timer_pdev->dev);
> > +
> >  	mutex_destroy(&omap->mutex);
> >
> >  	return 0;
> 
> I suggest to omit a few blank lines.

And I like it the way it is.

Best regards
Uwe

-- 
Pengutronix e.K.                           | Uwe Kleine-König            |
Industrial Linux Solutions                 | https://www.pengutronix.de/ |