[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <ccf63280-bad1-4450-bf36-44cd1dcb69b2@linaro.org>
Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2024 11:58:27 +0100
From: Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@...aro.org>
To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>
Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
Linux PM <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux ACPI <linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>, Lukasz Luba <lukasz.luba@....com>,
Zhang Rui <rui.zhang@...el.com>,
Srinivas Pandruvada <srinivas.pandruvada@...ux.intel.com>,
Stanislaw Gruszka <stanislaw.gruszka@...ux.intel.com>,
AngeloGioacchino Del Regno <angelogioacchino.delregno@...labora.com>,
Shawn Guo <shawnguo@...nel.org>, Sascha Hauer <s.hauer@...gutronix.de>,
Pengutronix Kernel Team <kernel@...gutronix.de>,
Fabio Estevam <festevam@...il.com>, NXP Linux Team <linux-imx@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 4/6] thermal: core: Store zone ops in struct
thermal_zone_device
On 22/02/2024 11:52, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 22, 2024 at 11:47 AM Daniel Lezcano
> <daniel.lezcano@...aro.org> wrote:
>>
>> On 14/02/2024 13:45, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>>> From: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>
>>>
>>> The current code requires thermal zone creators to pass pointers to
>>> writable ops structures to thermal_zone_device_register_with_trips()
>>> which needs to modify the target struct thermal_zone_device_ops object
>>> if the "critical" operation in it is NULL.
>>>
>>> Moreover, the callers of thermal_zone_device_register_with_trips() are
>>> required to hold on to the struct thermal_zone_device_ops object passed
>>> to it until the given thermal zone is unregistered.
>>>
>>> Both of these requirements are quite inconvenient, so modify struct
>>> thermal_zone_device to contain struct thermal_zone_device_ops as field and
>>> make thermal_zone_device_register_with_trips() copy the contents of the
>>> struct thermal_zone_device_ops passed to it via a pointer (which can be
>>> const now) to that field.
>>>
>>> Also adjust the code using thermal zone ops accordingly and modify
>>> thermal_of_zone_register() to use a local ops variable during
>>> thermal zone registration so ops do not need to be freed in
>>> thermal_of_zone_unregister() any more.
>>
>> [ ... ]
>>
>>> static void thermal_of_zone_unregister(struct thermal_zone_device *tz)
>>> {
>>> struct thermal_trip *trips = tz->trips;
>>> - struct thermal_zone_device_ops *ops = tz->ops;
>>>
>>> thermal_zone_device_disable(tz);
>>> thermal_zone_device_unregister(tz);
>>> kfree(trips);
>>
>> Not related to the current patch but with patch 1/6. Freeing the trip
>> points here will lead to a double free given it is already freed from
>> thermal_zone_device_unregister() after the changes introduces in patch
>> 1, right ?
>
> No, patch [1/6] doesn't free the caller-supplied ops, just copies them
> into the local instance. Attempting to free a static ops would not be
> a good idea, for example.
I'm referring to the trip points not the ops.
The patch 1 does:
tz = kzalloc(struct_size(tz, trips, num_trips), GFP_KERNEL);
Then the last line of thermal_zone_device_unregister() does:
kfree(tz);
That includes the trip points in the flexible array.
Now in thermal_of_zone_unregister(), we do:
trips = tz->trips;
thermal_zone_device_unregister(tz);
kfree(trips);
Hence double kfree, right?
> BTW, thanks for all of the reviews, but this series is not applicable
> without the one at
>
> https://lore.kernel.org/linux-pm/6017196.lOV4Wx5bFT@kreacher/
--
<http://www.linaro.org/> Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs
Follow Linaro: <http://www.facebook.com/pages/Linaro> Facebook |
<http://twitter.com/#!/linaroorg> Twitter |
<http://www.linaro.org/linaro-blog/> Blog
Powered by blists - more mailing lists