lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2018]   [Dec]   [14]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH v03] powerpc/mobility: Fix node detach/rename problem
From
Date
On 12/12/2018 08:57 PM, Michael Ellerman wrote:
> Frank Rowand <frowand.list@gmail.com> writes:
>> On 12/11/18 8:07 AM, Rob Herring wrote:
>>> On Tue, Dec 11, 2018 at 7:29 AM Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au> wrote:
> ...
>>>> diff --git a/drivers/of/base.c b/drivers/of/base.c
>>>> index 09692c9b32a7..d8e4534c0686 100644
>>>> --- a/drivers/of/base.c
>>>> +++ b/drivers/of/base.c
>>>> @@ -1190,6 +1190,10 @@ struct device_node *of_find_node_by_phandle(phandle handle)
>>>> if (phandle_cache[masked_handle] &&
>>>> handle == phandle_cache[masked_handle]->phandle)
>>>> np = phandle_cache[masked_handle];
>>>> +
>>>> + /* If we find a detached node, remove it */
>>>> + if (of_node_check_flag(np, OF_DETACHED))
>>>> + np = phandle_cache[masked_handle] = NULL;
>>
>> The bug you found exposes a couple of different issues, a little bit
>> deeper than the proposed fix. I'll work on a fuller fix tonight or
>> tomorrow.
>
> OK thanks.
>
>>> I'm wondering if we should explicitly remove the node from the cache
>>> when we set OF_DETACHED. Otherwise, it could be possible that the node
>>> pointer has been freed already. Or maybe we need both?
>>
>> Yes, it should be explicitly removed. I may also add in a paranoia check in
>> of_find_node_by_phandle().
>
> That seems best to me.

I agree that we should do both.

>
> cheers

Michael

--
Michael W. Bringmann
Linux I/O, Networking and Security Development
IBM Corporation
Tie-Line 363-5196
External: (512) 286-5196
Cell: (512) 466-0650
mwb@linux.vnet.ibm.com

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2018-12-14 22:59    [W:0.050 / U:0.472 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site