lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2019]   [Jul]   [31]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH] regulator: of: Add of_node_put() before return in function
From
Date
On 26/07/19 4:15 PM, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 26, 2019 at 01:02:52PM +0530, Nishka Dasgupta wrote:
>> On 24/07/19 9:17 PM, Mark Brown wrote:
>>> On Wed, Jul 24, 2019 at 02:02:31PM +0530, Nishka Dasgupta wrote:
>
>>>> The local variable search in regulator_of_get_init_node takes the value
>>>> returned by either of_get_child_by_name or of_node_get, both of which
>>>> get a node. If this node is not put before returning, it could cause a
>>>> memory leak. Hence put search before a mid-loop return statement.
>>>> Issue found with Coccinelle.
>
>>>> - if (!strcmp(desc->of_match, name))
>>>> + if (!strcmp(desc->of_match, name)) {
>>>> + of_node_put(search);
>>>> return of_node_get(child);
>>>> + }
>
>>> Why not just remove the extra of_node_get() and a comment explaining why
>>> it's not needed?
>
>> I'm sorry, I don't think I understand. I'm putting search in this patch; the
>> program was already getting child. Should I also return child directly
>> instead of getting it again, and continue to put search?
>
> Your new code is dropping a reference then immediately reacquiring one
> to return it (introducing a race condition along the way). Why not just
> return the already held reference and not call any functions at all?
>
I still don't understand.
Previously the function was acquiring a reference to child with
of_node_get().
My added code is dropping a reference to search, using of_node_put().
I'm probably misunderstanding this at some point, but I thought search
and child are two different nodes? Or am I completely misunderstanding
what you're explaining?
Apologies for the confusion.

Thanking you,
Nishka

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2019-07-31 15:11    [W:3.071 / U:0.472 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site