linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] sysrq: Auto release device node using _

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]

Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2024 20:11:36 +0200
From: Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To: Roman Storozhenko <romeusmeister@...il.com>
Cc: jirislaby@...nel.org, Julia.Lawall@...ia.fr, skhan@...uxfoundation.org,
	javier.carrasco.cruz@...il.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-serial@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sysrq: Auto release device node using __free attribute

On Thu, Apr 11, 2024 at 08:02:56PM +0200, Roman Storozhenko wrote:
> Add a cleanup function attribute '__free(device_node)' to the device node
> pointer initialization statement and remove the pairing cleanup function
> call of 'of_node_put' at the end of the function.
> The '_free()' attrubute is introduced by scope-based resource management
> in-kernel framework implemented in 'cleanup.h'. A pointer marked with
> '__free()' attribute makes a compiler insert a cleanup function call
> to the places where the pointer goes out of the scope. This feature
> allows to get rid of manual cleanup function calls.
> 
> Suggested-by: Julia.Lawall <Julia.Lawall@...ia.fr>
> Signed-off-by: Roman Storozhenko <romeusmeister@...il.com>
> ---
> This patch targets the next tree:
> tree: git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/next/linux-next.git
> tag: next-20240411
> ---
>  drivers/tty/sysrq.c | 7 +++----
>  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/tty/sysrq.c b/drivers/tty/sysrq.c
> index 02217e3c916b..1d1261f618c0 100644
> --- a/drivers/tty/sysrq.c
> +++ b/drivers/tty/sysrq.c
> @@ -758,11 +758,12 @@ static void sysrq_detect_reset_sequence(struct sysrq_state *state,
>  static void sysrq_of_get_keyreset_config(void)
>  {
>  	u32 key;
> -	struct device_node *np;
>  	struct property *prop;
>  	const __be32 *p;
>  
> -	np = of_find_node_by_path("/chosen/linux,sysrq-reset-seq");
> +	struct device_node *np __free(device_node) =
> +		of_find_node_by_path("/chosen/linux,sysrq-reset-seq");
> +
>  	if (!np) {
>  		pr_debug("No sysrq node found");
>  		return;
> @@ -781,8 +782,6 @@ static void sysrq_of_get_keyreset_config(void)
>  
>  	/* Get reset timeout if any. */
>  	of_property_read_u32(np, "timeout-ms", &sysrq_reset_downtime_ms);
> -
> -	of_node_put(np);
>  }
>  #else
>  static void sysrq_of_get_keyreset_config(void)

Also, this change really makes no sense at all, the pointer never goes
out of scope except when the function is over, at the bottom.  So why
make this complex change at all for no benefit?

In other words, properly understand the change you are making and only
make it if it actually makes sense.  It does not make any sense here,
right?

thanks,

greg k-h