| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <a13ba751-9350-47ee-1c4d-77bbfbb8ed72@amd.com>
Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2023 19:11:57 -0700
From: Lizhi Hou <lizhi.hou@....com>
To: Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>
CC: <linux-pci@...r.kernel.org>, <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <frowand.list@...il.com>,
<helgaas@...nel.org>, <clement.leger@...tlin.com>,
<max.zhen@....com>, <sonal.santan@....com>, <larry.liu@....com>,
<brian.xu@....com>, <stefano.stabellini@...inx.com>,
<trix@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V7 1/3] of: dynamic: Add interfaces for creating device
node dynamically
On 3/23/23 15:40, Rob Herring wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 19, 2023 at 9:02 PM Lizhi Hou <lizhi.hou@....com> wrote:
>> of_create_node() creates device node dynamically. The parent device node
>> and full name are required for creating the node. It optionally creates
>> an OF changeset and attaches the newly created node to the changeset. The
>> device node pointer and the changeset pointer can be used to add
>> properties to the device node and apply the node to the base tree.
>>
>> of_destroy_node() frees the device node created by of_create_node(). If
>> an OF changeset was also created for this node, it will destroy the
>> changeset before freeing the device node.
>>
>> Expand of_changeset APIs to handle specific types of properties.
>> of_changeset_add_prop_string()
>> of_changeset_add_prop_string_array()
>> of_changeset_add_prop_u32_array()
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Lizhi Hou <lizhi.hou@....com>
> Your Sob should be last because you sent this patch. The order of Sob
> is roughly the order of possession of the patch.
Got it.
>
>> Signed-off-by: Sonal Santan <sonal.santan@....com>
>> Signed-off-by: Max Zhen <max.zhen@....com>
> So Sonal and Max modified this patch?
They did not directly modify the code. And we discussed the design
together. They also reviewed the patch before I sent it out. Please let
me know if other keyword should be used in this case.
>
>> Reviewed-by: Brian Xu <brian.xu@....com>
>> Signed-off-by: Clément Léger <clement.leger@...tlin.com>
> Why does this have Clément's Sob?
I referenced Clément 's code and used one portion in my first patch
series. And I re-implemented it later to address the code review
comments/requests.
>
>> ---
>> drivers/of/dynamic.c | 197 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>> include/linux/of.h | 24 ++++++
>> 2 files changed, 221 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/of/dynamic.c b/drivers/of/dynamic.c
>> index cd3821a6444f..4e211a1d039f 100644
>> --- a/drivers/of/dynamic.c
>> +++ b/drivers/of/dynamic.c
>> @@ -461,6 +461,71 @@ struct device_node *__of_node_dup(const struct device_node *np,
>> return NULL;
>> }
>>
>> +/**
>> + * of_create_node - Dynamically create a device node
> For consistency, I think this should be of_changeset_create_node().
Sure.
>
>> + *
>> + * @parent: Pointer to parent device node
>> + * @full_name: Node full name
>> + * @cset: Pointer to returning changeset
>> + *
>> + * Return: Pointer to the created device node or NULL in case of an error.
>> + */
>> +struct device_node *of_create_node(struct device_node *parent,
>> + const char *full_name,
>> + struct of_changeset **cset)
>> +{
>> + struct of_changeset *ocs;
>> + struct device_node *np;
>> + int ret;
>> +
>> + np = __of_node_dup(NULL, full_name);
>> + if (!np)
>> + return NULL;
>> + np->parent = parent;
>> +
>> + if (!cset)
>> + return np;
>> +
>> + ocs = kmalloc(sizeof(*ocs), GFP_KERNEL);
>> + if (!ocs) {
>> + of_node_put(np);
>> + return NULL;
>> + }
>> +
>> + of_changeset_init(ocs);
>> + ret = of_changeset_attach_node(ocs, np);
>> + if (ret) {
>> + of_changeset_destroy(ocs);
>> + of_node_put(np);
>> + kfree(ocs);
>> + return NULL;
>> + }
>> +
>> + np->data = ocs;
>> + *cset = ocs;
>> +
>> + return np;
>> +}
>> +EXPORT_SYMBOL(of_create_node);
>> +
>> +/**
>> + * of_destroy_node - Destroy a dynamically created device node
>> + *
>> + * @np: Pointer to dynamically created device node
>> + *
>> + */
>> +void of_destroy_node(struct device_node *np)
>> +{
>> + struct of_changeset *ocs;
>> +
>> + if (np->data) {
>> + ocs = (struct of_changeset *)np->data;
>> + of_changeset_destroy(ocs);
>> + }
>> + of_node_put(np);
> A sequence like this would be broken:
>
> np = of_create_node()
> of_node_get(np)
> of_destroy_node(np)
>
> The put here won't free the node because it still has a ref, but we
> just freed the changeset. For this to work correctly, we would need
> the release function to handle np->data instead. However, all users of
> data aren't a changeset.
>
> I'm failing to remember why we're storing the changeset in 'data', but
> there doesn't seem to be a reason now so I think that can just be
> dropped. Then if you want to free the node, you'd just do an
> of_node_put(). (And maybe after the node is attached you do a put too,
> because the attach does a get. Not completely sure.)
The question is how to save changeset and free it later. I used global
link list to track the changeset been created.
Storing the changeset in 'data' can avoid using the global link list.
To use of_node_put() to free both node and changeset, I think we can
1) add a new flag, then in of_node_release() we can know np->data is
changeset by checking the flag.
2) When creating node, allocate extra memory for changeset and set
np->data to a global function of_free_dynamic_node().
In of_node_release(), check if np->data == of_free_dynamic_node,
call of_free_dynamic_node(np).
in of_free_dynamic_node(), free changeset by
of_changeset_destroy(np+1)
Does this make sense to you? If yes, 1) or 2) sounds better?
>
> A unittest for all these functions would be helpful.
Ok, I will create unittest for the new added functions.
Thanks,
Lizhi
>
> Rob
Powered by blists - more mailing lists