linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] of: overlay: fix warning being reported as error in add_changeset

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: <2ec3f5dc-b974-e799-2b96-d7b09dee4df1@gmail.com>
Date:   Tue, 10 Jan 2023 00:23:52 -0600
From:   Frank Rowand <frowand.list@...il.com>
To:     "Ankit 16. Kumar (Nokia)" <ankit.16.kumar@...ia.com>,
        "robh+dt@...nel.org" <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        "devicetree@...r.kernel.org" <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] of: overlay: fix warning being reported as error in
 add_changeset_property

On 1/2/23 08:35, Frank Rowand wrote:
> On 12/30/22 02:40, Ankit 16. Kumar (Nokia) wrote:
>>
>> The print causes false reporting of the issue which actually is a warning
> 
> How did you select the commit in this Fixes tag?
> 
>> Fixes: 2fe0e8769df9 ("of: overlay: check prevents multiple fragments touching same property")
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Ankit Kumar <ankit.16.kumar@...ia.com>
>> ---
>>  drivers/of/overlay.c | 2 +-
>>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/of/overlay.c b/drivers/of/overlay.c index ed4e6c144a68..0da39b8461e7 100644
>> --- a/drivers/of/overlay.c
>> +++ b/drivers/of/overlay.c
>> @@ -358,7 +358,7 @@ static int add_changeset_property(struct overlay_changeset *ovcs,
>>  	}
>>  
>>  	if (!of_node_check_flag(target->np, OF_OVERLAY))
>> -		pr_err("WARNING: memory leak will occur if overlay removed, property: %pOF/%s\n",
>> +		pr_warn("WARNING: memory leak will occur if overlay removed, 
>> +property: %pOF/%s\n",
>>  		       target->np, new_prop->name);
>>  
>>  	if (ret) {
>> --
>> 2.30.1
>>
> 
> NACK.  This patch is incorrect.  The reported memory leak is a bug, not a warning.
> 
> I'll write up some information about why the memory leak occurs, then reply to this
> email with the additional info.

The additional information is now available at:

   https://elinux.org/Device_Tree_Linux#Object_Lifetime

> 
> -Frank