linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH next] drivers: soc: qcom: Auto cleanup using __free(device

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: <CAH8oh8VL8Tn_w_pDRzW9UzwS27RF_Zq3OFa_aNqPPyuH8z=5Eg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 22 May 2024 21:02:09 +0530
From: prabhav kumar <pvkumar5749404@...il.com>
To: Bjorn Andersson <quic_bjorande@...cinc.com>
Cc: andersson@...nel.org, konrad.dybcio@...aro.org, 
	linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, 
	julia.lawall@...ia.fr, javier.carrasco@...fvision.net, 
	skhan@...uxfoundation.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH next] drivers: soc: qcom: Auto cleanup using __free(device_node)

On Wed, May 22, 2024 at 1:13 AM Bjorn Andersson
<quic_bjorande@...cinc.com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, May 22, 2024 at 01:01:22AM +0530, prabhav kumar wrote:
> > On Wed, May 22, 2024 at 12:50 AM Bjorn Andersson
> > <quic_bjorande@...cinc.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Sun, Apr 07, 2024 at 12:53:30PM +0530, Prabhav Kumar Vaish wrote:
> > > > Use automated cleanup to replace of_node_put() in qcom_smem_resolve_mem().
> > > >
> > >
> > > I don't find this easier to read or maintain.
> > Should I change it , explaining the change ??
> > >
> > > Also, your subject prefix does not match other changes to this driver.
> > The patch is to add a __free function attribute to np pointer
> > initialization ensuring
> > the pointers are freed as soon as they go out of scope, thus removing
> > the work to
> > manually free them using of_node_put.
>
> Yes, that is what the __free() attribute does, but I don't find it
> easier to read and unless I'm missing something you're not fixing an
> actual issue here?
>
There is not any issue here, the patch sent is the cleanup of unnecessary
of_node_put() function call.

Thanks,
Prabhav

> Regards,
> Bjorn
>
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > > Bjorn
> > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Prabhav Kumar Vaish <pvkumar5749404@...il.com>
> > > > ---
> > > > drivers/soc/qcom/smem.c | 4 +---
> > > >  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 3 deletions(-)
> > > >
> > > > diff --git a/drivers/soc/qcom/smem.c b/drivers/soc/qcom/smem.c
> > > > index 7191fa0c087f..ad1cf8dcc6ec 100644
> > > > --- a/drivers/soc/qcom/smem.c
> > > > +++ b/drivers/soc/qcom/smem.c
> > > > @@ -1032,18 +1032,16 @@ static int qcom_smem_resolve_mem(struct qcom_smem *smem, const char *name,
> > > >                                struct smem_region *region)
> > > >  {
> > > >       struct device *dev = smem->dev;
> > > > -     struct device_node *np;
> > > >       struct resource r;
> > > >       int ret;
> > > > +     struct device_node *np __free(device_node) = of_parse_phandle(dev->of_node, name, 0);
> > > >
> > > > -     np = of_parse_phandle(dev->of_node, name, 0);
> > > >       if (!np) {
> > > >               dev_err(dev, "No %s specified\n", name);
> > > >               return -EINVAL;
> > > >       }
> > > >
> > > >       ret = of_address_to_resource(np, 0, &r);
> > > > -     of_node_put(np);
> > > >       if (ret)
> > > >               return ret;
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > 2.34.1
> > > >