linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v1 1/1] platform/chrome: cros_ec_typec: Put fwnode in error case during ->probe()

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <YMfLJbTUqyKAcBeu@google.com>
Date:   Mon, 14 Jun 2021 14:33:25 -0700
From:   Prashant Malani <pmalani@...omium.org>
To:     Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Benson Leung <bleung@...omium.org>,
        Enric Balletbo i Serra <enric.balletbo@...labora.com>,
        Guenter Roeck <groeck@...omium.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 1/1] platform/chrome: cros_ec_typec: Put fwnode in
 error case during ->probe()

Hi Andy,

On Mon, Jun 14, 2021 at 11:33:10PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> device_for_each_child_node() bumps a reference counting of a returned variable.
> We have to balance it whenever we return to the caller.
> 
> Fixes: fdc6b21e2444 ("platform/chrome: Add Type C connector class driver")
> Cc: Prashant Malani <pmalani@...omium.org>
> Signed-off-by: Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>

Minor nit, but regardless of that:
Reviewed-by: Prashant Malani <pmalani@...omium.org>

> ---
>  drivers/platform/chrome/cros_ec_typec.c | 1 +
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/platform/chrome/cros_ec_typec.c b/drivers/platform/chrome/cros_ec_typec.c
> index 27c068c4c38d..fb03c22fa34d 100644
> --- a/drivers/platform/chrome/cros_ec_typec.c
> +++ b/drivers/platform/chrome/cros_ec_typec.c
> @@ -375,6 +375,7 @@ static int cros_typec_init_ports(struct cros_typec_data *typec)
>  	return 0;
>  
>  unregister_ports:
> +	fwnode_handle_put(fwnode);

It reads better to have this at the location where the goto's are called, but
there are several of them. Instead, can you add a 1-line comment explaining that
the reference is left over? It isn't clear even by going a few calls down the
stack of device_for_each_child_node().


Best regards,

-Prashant