lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2019]   [Dec]   [19]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH] of: refcount leak when phandle_cache entry replaced
From
Date
On 12/12/19 8:00 AM, Rob Herring wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 12, 2019 at 5:17 AM Frank Rowand <frowand.list@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> On 12/11/19 2:18 PM, Rob Herring wrote:
>>> On Tue, 10 Dec 2019 02:14:53 -0600, frowand.list@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> From: Frank Rowand <frank.rowand@sony.com>
>>>>
>>>> of_find_node_by_phandle() does not do an of_node_put() of the existing
>>>> node in a phandle cache entry when that node is replaced by a new node.
>>>>
>>>> Reported-by: Rob Herring <robh+dt@kernel.org>
>>>> Fixes: b8a9ac1a5b99 ("of: of_node_get()/of_node_put() nodes held in phandle cache")
>>>> Signed-off-by: Frank Rowand <frank.rowand@sony.com>
>>>> ---
>>>>
>>>> Checkpatch will warn about a line over 80 characters. Let me know
>>>> if that bothers you.
>>>>
>>>> drivers/of/base.c | 2 ++
>>>> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
>>>>
>>>
>>> Applied, thanks.
>>>
>>> Rob
>>>
>>
>> If the rework patch of the cache that you posted shortly after accepting
>> my patch, then my patch becomes not needed and is just extra noise in the
>> history. Once your patch finishes review (I am assuming it probably
>> will), then my patch should be reverted.
>
> The question is what to backport: nothing, this patch or mine? My
> thought was to apply this mainly to backport. If you're fine with
> nothing or mine, then we can drop it. I'm a bit nervous marking mine
> for stable.
>
> Rob
>

Your rework patch is slightly larger than what is preferred for stable,
but it is more likely that future patches to the files in the rework
patch will be able to be applied to stable. So I am happy with
either nothing or your patch.

-Frank

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2019-12-19 16:57    [W:0.044 / U:2.108 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site