linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 1/2] device property: Add scoped fwnode child node iterators

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: <90211F66-7E6D-4C37-8452-EE88B1F94F53@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 02 Sep 2025 12:54:30 -0400
From: Jean-François Lessard <jefflessard3@...il.com>
To: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
CC: Danilo Krummrich <dakr@...nel.org>,
 Wolfram Sang <wsa+renesas@...g-engineering.com>,
 Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>,
 Daniel Scally <djrscally@...il.com>,
 Heikki Krogerus <heikki.krogerus@...ux.intel.com>,
 Sakari Ailus <sakari.ailus@...ux.intel.com>,
 "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>, linux-i2c@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/2] device property: Add scoped fwnode child node iterators

Le 2 septembre 2025 00 h 50 min 08 s HAE, Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org> a écrit :
>On Mon, Sep 01, 2025 at 02:16:35PM -0400, Jean-François Lessard wrote:
>> Le 1 septembre 2025 13 h 48 min 14 s HAE, Danilo Krummrich <dakr@...nel.org> a écrit :
>> >On 9/1/25 6:36 PM, Jean-François Lessard wrote:
>> >> Add scoped versions of fwnode child node iterators that automatically
>> >> handle reference counting cleanup using the __free() attribute:
>> >> 
>> >> - fwnode_for_each_child_node_scoped()
>> >> - fwnode_for_each_named_child_node_scoped()
>> >> - fwnode_for_each_available_child_node_scoped()
>> >> 
>> >> These macros follow the same pattern as existing scoped iterators in the
>> >> kernel, ensuring fwnode references are automatically released when the
>> >> iterator variable goes out of scope. This prevents resource leaks and
>> >> eliminates the need for manual cleanup in error paths.
>> >> 
>> >> The implementation mirrors the non-scoped variants but uses
>> >> __free(fwnode_handle) for automatic resource management, providing a
>> >> safer and more convenient interface for drivers iterating over firmware
>> >> node children.
>> >> 
>> >> Signed-off-by: Jean-François Lessard <jefflessard3@...il.com>
>> >
>> >Thanks for adding a user and splitting it up (Andy was a bit faster than me :).
>> >
>> 
>> Very welcome! Thanks for reviewing.
>> 
>> >> diff --git a/include/linux/property.h b/include/linux/property.h
>> >> index 82f0cb3ab..279c244db 100644
>> >> --- a/include/linux/property.h
>> >> +++ b/include/linux/property.h
>> >> @@ -176,6 +176,20 @@ struct fwnode_handle *fwnode_get_next_available_child_node(
>> >>   	for (child = fwnode_get_next_available_child_node(fwnode, NULL); child;\
>> >>   	     child = fwnode_get_next_available_child_node(fwnode, child))
>> >>   +#define fwnode_for_each_child_node_scoped(fwnode, child)		\
>> >> +	for (struct fwnode_handle *child __free(fwnode_handle) =	\
>> >> +		fwnode_get_next_child_node(fwnode, NULL);		\
>> >> +	     child; child = fwnode_get_next_child_node(fwnode, child))
>> >> +
>> >> +#define fwnode_for_each_named_child_node_scoped(fwnode, child, name)	\
>> >> +	fwnode_for_each_child_node_scoped(fwnode, child)		\
>> >> +		for_each_if(fwnode_name_eq(child, name))
>> >
>> >IIRC, your first patch mentioned that your driver series would only use
>> >fwnode_for_each_available_child_node_scoped().
>> 
>> You are correct. Next version of TM16XX driver patch series will use
>> fwnode_for_each_available_child_node_scoped()
>> 
>> >
>> >And this series adds a user for fwnode_for_each_child_node_scoped(); do you also have a user for fwnode_for_each_named_child_node_scoped()?
>> 
>> No, I haven't found an existing user that requires the scoped version. The only
>> usage I found of the non-scoped fwnode_for_each_named_child_node() is in 
>> drivers/base/property.c in fwnode_get_named_child_node_count(), which doesn't
>> need to put the fwnode.
>> 
>> I included it for consistency since the header defines all three non-scoped
>> variants, but I understand the "no dead code" policy concern.
>> 
>> Would you prefer I drop the fwnode_for_each_named_child_node_scoped() 
>> variant and submit a v4 with only the two variants that have real users?
>
>Yes please.

Understood. I will do so.