diff mbox series

[v4,04/18] powerpc/pseries: add of_node_put() in dlpar_detach_node()

Message ID 1539657458-24401-5-git-send-email-frowand.list@gmail.com (mailing list archive)
State Not Applicable
Headers show
Series of: overlay: validation checks, subsequent fixes | expand

Checks

Context Check Description
snowpatch_ozlabs/apply_patch success next/apply_patch Successfully applied
snowpatch_ozlabs/checkpatch success Test checkpatch on branch next

Commit Message

Frank Rowand Oct. 16, 2018, 2:37 a.m. UTC
From: Frank Rowand <frank.rowand@sony.com>

"of: overlay: add missing of_node_get() in __of_attach_node_sysfs"
added a missing of_node_get() to __of_attach_node_sysfs().  This
results in a refcount imbalance for nodes attached with
dlpar_attach_node().  The calling sequence from dlpar_attach_node()
to __of_attach_node_sysfs() is:

   dlpar_attach_node()
      of_attach_node()
         __of_attach_node_sysfs()

Signed-off-by: Frank Rowand <frank.rowand@sony.com>
---

***** UNTESTED.  I need people with the affected PowerPC systems
*****            (systems that dynamically allocate and deallocate
*****            devicetree nodes) to test this patch.

 arch/powerpc/platforms/pseries/dlpar.c | 2 ++
 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)

Comments

Rob Herring Oct. 18, 2018, 5:09 p.m. UTC | #1
On Mon, Oct 15, 2018 at 07:37:24PM -0700, frowand.list@gmail.com wrote:
> From: Frank Rowand <frank.rowand@sony.com>
> 
> "of: overlay: add missing of_node_get() in __of_attach_node_sysfs"
> added a missing of_node_get() to __of_attach_node_sysfs().  This
> results in a refcount imbalance for nodes attached with
> dlpar_attach_node().  The calling sequence from dlpar_attach_node()
> to __of_attach_node_sysfs() is:
> 
>    dlpar_attach_node()
>       of_attach_node()
>          __of_attach_node_sysfs()

IIRC, there's a long standing item in the todo (Grant's) to convert the 
open coded dlpar code. Maybe you want to do that first?

> 
> Signed-off-by: Frank Rowand <frank.rowand@sony.com>
> ---
> 
> ***** UNTESTED.  I need people with the affected PowerPC systems
> *****            (systems that dynamically allocate and deallocate
> *****            devicetree nodes) to test this patch.

Can't we write a test case that does the same thing?

> 
>  arch/powerpc/platforms/pseries/dlpar.c | 2 ++
>  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/arch/powerpc/platforms/pseries/dlpar.c b/arch/powerpc/platforms/pseries/dlpar.c
> index a0b20c03f078..e3010b14aea5 100644
> --- a/arch/powerpc/platforms/pseries/dlpar.c
> +++ b/arch/powerpc/platforms/pseries/dlpar.c
> @@ -272,6 +272,8 @@ int dlpar_detach_node(struct device_node *dn)
>  	if (rc)
>  		return rc;
>  
> +	of_node_put(dn);
> +
>  	return 0;
>  }
>  
> -- 
> Frank Rowand <frank.rowand@sony.com>
>
Frank Rowand Oct. 18, 2018, 7:09 p.m. UTC | #2
On 10/18/18 10:09, Rob Herring wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 15, 2018 at 07:37:24PM -0700, frowand.list@gmail.com wrote:
>> From: Frank Rowand <frank.rowand@sony.com>
>>
>> "of: overlay: add missing of_node_get() in __of_attach_node_sysfs"
>> added a missing of_node_get() to __of_attach_node_sysfs().  This
>> results in a refcount imbalance for nodes attached with
>> dlpar_attach_node().  The calling sequence from dlpar_attach_node()
>> to __of_attach_node_sysfs() is:
>>
>>    dlpar_attach_node()
>>       of_attach_node()
>>          __of_attach_node_sysfs()
> 
> IIRC, there's a long standing item in the todo (Grant's) to convert the 
> open coded dlpar code. Maybe you want to do that first?

I'd like to avoid extra delays to getting the current (with necesary
fixes) series accepted because the series is rather intrusive and
could have conflicts with other patches.

I'm also worried that I don't have access to any of the systems that
use the dynamic overlay code, and I don't have any way to test the
changes.

Can we encourage the users of this code to convert the open coded
dlpar code?


>>
>> Signed-off-by: Frank Rowand <frank.rowand@sony.com>
>> ---
>>
>> ***** UNTESTED.  I need people with the affected PowerPC systems
>> *****            (systems that dynamically allocate and deallocate
>> *****            devicetree nodes) to test this patch.
> 
> Can't we write a test case that does the same thing?

I could write a simplistic test case, but I'm concerned that
simplistic is not anywhere near sufficient.  And my test case
would reflect the same assumptions I already have when I
wrote this patch.


>>
>>  arch/powerpc/platforms/pseries/dlpar.c | 2 ++
>>  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/arch/powerpc/platforms/pseries/dlpar.c b/arch/powerpc/platforms/pseries/dlpar.c
>> index a0b20c03f078..e3010b14aea5 100644
>> --- a/arch/powerpc/platforms/pseries/dlpar.c
>> +++ b/arch/powerpc/platforms/pseries/dlpar.c
>> @@ -272,6 +272,8 @@ int dlpar_detach_node(struct device_node *dn)
>>  	if (rc)
>>  		return rc;
>>  
>> +	of_node_put(dn);
>> +
>>  	return 0;
>>  }
>>  
>> -- 
>> Frank Rowand <frank.rowand@sony.com>
>>
>
Rob Herring Oct. 19, 2018, 4:10 p.m. UTC | #3
On Thu, Oct 18, 2018 at 2:09 PM Frank Rowand <frowand.list@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 10/18/18 10:09, Rob Herring wrote:
> > On Mon, Oct 15, 2018 at 07:37:24PM -0700, frowand.list@gmail.com wrote:
> >> From: Frank Rowand <frank.rowand@sony.com>
> >>
> >> "of: overlay: add missing of_node_get() in __of_attach_node_sysfs"
> >> added a missing of_node_get() to __of_attach_node_sysfs().  This
> >> results in a refcount imbalance for nodes attached with
> >> dlpar_attach_node().  The calling sequence from dlpar_attach_node()
> >> to __of_attach_node_sysfs() is:
> >>
> >>    dlpar_attach_node()
> >>       of_attach_node()
> >>          __of_attach_node_sysfs()
> >
> > IIRC, there's a long standing item in the todo (Grant's) to convert the
> > open coded dlpar code. Maybe you want to do that first?
>
> I'd like to avoid extra delays to getting the current (with necesary
> fixes) series accepted because the series is rather intrusive and
> could have conflicts with other patches.
>
> I'm also worried that I don't have access to any of the systems that
> use the dynamic overlay code, and I don't have any way to test the
> changes.

Mainly I was thinking you are asking them to test changes now, so I
was thinking better to do that once than twice.

Either way is fine though.

> Can we encourage the users of this code to convert the open coded
> dlpar code?

That would be ideal...

Rob
diff mbox series

Patch

diff --git a/arch/powerpc/platforms/pseries/dlpar.c b/arch/powerpc/platforms/pseries/dlpar.c
index a0b20c03f078..e3010b14aea5 100644
--- a/arch/powerpc/platforms/pseries/dlpar.c
+++ b/arch/powerpc/platforms/pseries/dlpar.c
@@ -272,6 +272,8 @@  int dlpar_detach_node(struct device_node *dn)
 	if (rc)
 		return rc;
 
+	of_node_put(dn);
+
 	return 0;
 }