linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH v3 3/9] software_node: Fix failure to hold refcount in software_node_get_next

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: <d8f3880e-1b4c-b9dc-7bb2-cb8b7658263e@gmail.com>
Date:   Wed, 21 Oct 2020 10:56:01 +0100
From:   Dan Scally <djrscally@...il.com>
To:     Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
Cc:     Sakari Ailus <sakari.ailus@....fi>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-media@...r.kernel.org, linux.walleij@...aro.org,
        prabhakar.mahadev-lad.rj@...renesas.com,
        heikki.krogerus@...ux.intel.com, dmitry.torokhov@...il.com,
        laurent.pinchart+renesas@...asonboard.com,
        kieran.bingham+renesas@...asonboard.com, jacopo+renesas@...ndi.org,
        robh@...nel.org, davem@...emloft.net, linux@...musvillemoes.dk,
        sergey.senozhatsky@...il.com, rostedt@...dmis.org,
        pmladek@...e.com, mchehab@...nel.org, tian.shu.qiu@...el.com,
        bingbu.cao@...el.com, sakari.ailus@...ux.intel.com,
        yong.zhi@...el.com, rafael@...nel.org, gregkh@...uxfoundation.org,
        kitakar@...il.com, dan.carpenter@...cle.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v3 3/9] software_node: Fix failure to hold refcount in
 software_node_get_next_child


On 21/10/2020 10:33, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 21, 2020 at 12:25:28AM +0100, Dan Scally wrote:
>> On 20/10/2020 14:31, Sakari Ailus wrote:
>>> On Mon, Oct 19, 2020 at 11:58:57PM +0100, Daniel Scally wrote:
>>>> +	return software_node_get(&c->fwnode);
>>> I believe similarly, the function should drop the reference to the previous
>>> node, and not expect the caller to do this. The OF equivalent does the
>>> same.
>> I think I prefer it this way myself, since the alternative is having to
>> explicitly call *_node_get() on a returned child if you want to keep it
>> but also keep iterating. But I agree that it's important to take a
>> consistent approach. I'll add that too; this will mean
>> swnode_graph_find_next_port() and
>> software_node_graph_get_next_endpoint() in patch 4 of this series will
>> need changing slightly to square away their references.
> What about ACPI case? Does it square?
ACPI version doesn't handle references at all; neither puts() the old
nor gets() the new child node.