| Message ID | 1556262488-21072-1-git-send-email-wen.yang99@zte.com.cn (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | Mainlined |
| Commit | c2af88f1a0cdf4cbe94b51fd93e52a3f55606a13 |
| Headers | show |
| Series | [v3] ARM: rockchip: fix a leaked reference by adding missing of_node_put | expand |
> arch/arm/mach-rockchip/platsmp.c | 12 ++++++++++-- > arch/arm/mach-rockchip/pm.c | 2 ++ * Would a commit subject variant be nicer? * I dare to present a reminder for a recurring development topic. How do you think about to adjust the exception handling in these function implementations a bit more according to the Linux coding style (so that the addition of duplicate function calls would be avoided)? Regards, Markus
Am Sonntag, 28. April 2019, 08:27:05 CEST schrieb Markus Elfring: > > arch/arm/mach-rockchip/platsmp.c | 12 ++++++++++-- > > arch/arm/mach-rockchip/pm.c | 2 ++ > > * Would a commit subject variant be nicer? yeah, but I'll simply adjust that when applying. > * I dare to present a reminder for a recurring development topic. > How do you think about to adjust the exception handling in these function > implementations a bit more according to the Linux coding style > (so that the addition of duplicate function calls would be avoided)? I actually requested not doing wild gotos for of_node_put calls, as it makes the code harder to read, especially when the "node" gets reused for a different node-source.
Am Freitag, 26. April 2019, 09:08:08 CEST schrieb Wen Yang: > The call to of_get_next_child returns a node pointer with refcount > incremented thus it must be explicitly decremented after the last > usage. > > Detected by coccinelle with the following warnings: > ./arch/arm/mach-rockchip/pm.c:269:2-8: ERROR: missing of_node_put; acquired a node pointer with refcount incremented on line 259, but without a corresponding object release within this function. > ./arch/arm/mach-rockchip/pm.c:275:2-8: ERROR: missing of_node_put; acquired a node pointer with refcount incremented on line 259, but without a corresponding object release within this function > ./arch/arm/mach-rockchip/platsmp.c:281:2-8: ERROR: missing of_node_put; acquired a node pointer with refcount incremented on line 272, but without a corresponding object release within this function. > ./arch/arm/mach-rockchip/platsmp.c:285:2-8: ERROR: missing of_node_put; acquired a node pointer with refcount incremented on line 272, but without a corresponding object release within this function. > ./arch/arm/mach-rockchip/platsmp.c:289:3-9: ERROR: missing of_node_put; acquired a node pointer with refcount incremented on line 272, but without a corresponding object release within this function. > ./arch/arm/mach-rockchip/platsmp.c:303:3-9: ERROR: missing of_node_put; acquired a node pointer with refcount incremented on line 294, but without a corresponding object release within this function. > > Signed-off-by: Wen Yang <wen.yang99@zte.com.cn> > Reviewed-by: Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@gmail.com> > Suggested-by: Heiko Stuebner <heiko@sntech.de> > Cc: Russell King <linux@armlinux.org.uk> > Cc: Heiko Stuebner <heiko@sntech.de> > Cc: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org > Cc: linux-rockchip@lists.infradead.org > Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org queued for 5.3 (too late for 5.2) Thanks Heiko
>> How do you think about to adjust the exception handling in these function >> implementations a bit more according to the Linux coding style >> (so that the addition of duplicate function calls would be avoided)? > > I actually requested not doing wild gotos for of_node_put calls, > as it makes the code harder to read, especially when the "node" > gets reused for a different node-source. Does this feedback mean that you insist on another deviation from the Linux coding style? Regards, Markus
diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-rockchip/platsmp.c b/arch/arm/mach-rockchip/platsmp.c index 4675d92..afd1514 100644 --- a/arch/arm/mach-rockchip/platsmp.c +++ b/arch/arm/mach-rockchip/platsmp.c @@ -278,19 +278,25 @@ static void __init rockchip_smp_prepare_cpus(unsigned int max_cpus) sram_base_addr = of_iomap(node, 0); if (!sram_base_addr) { pr_err("%s: could not map sram registers\n", __func__); + of_node_put(node); return; } - if (has_pmu && rockchip_smp_prepare_pmu()) + if (has_pmu && rockchip_smp_prepare_pmu()) { + of_node_put(node); return; + } if (read_cpuid_part() == ARM_CPU_PART_CORTEX_A9) { - if (rockchip_smp_prepare_sram(node)) + if (rockchip_smp_prepare_sram(node)) { + of_node_put(node); return; + } /* enable the SCU power domain */ pmu_set_power_domain(PMU_PWRDN_SCU, true); + of_node_put(node); node = of_find_compatible_node(NULL, NULL, "arm,cortex-a9-scu"); if (!node) { pr_err("%s: missing scu\n", __func__); @@ -300,6 +306,7 @@ static void __init rockchip_smp_prepare_cpus(unsigned int max_cpus) scu_base_addr = of_iomap(node, 0); if (!scu_base_addr) { pr_err("%s: could not map scu registers\n", __func__); + of_node_put(node); return; } @@ -318,6 +325,7 @@ static void __init rockchip_smp_prepare_cpus(unsigned int max_cpus) asm ("mrc p15, 1, %0, c9, c0, 2\n" : "=r" (l2ctlr)); ncores = ((l2ctlr >> 24) & 0x3) + 1; } + of_node_put(node); /* Make sure that all cores except the first are really off */ for (i = 1; i < ncores; i++) diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-rockchip/pm.c b/arch/arm/mach-rockchip/pm.c index 065b09e..4a4f914 100644 --- a/arch/arm/mach-rockchip/pm.c +++ b/arch/arm/mach-rockchip/pm.c @@ -266,12 +266,14 @@ static int __init rk3288_suspend_init(struct device_node *np) rk3288_bootram_base = of_iomap(sram_np, 0); if (!rk3288_bootram_base) { pr_err("%s: could not map bootram base\n", __func__); + of_node_put(sram_np); return -ENOMEM; } ret = of_address_to_resource(sram_np, 0, &res); if (ret) { pr_err("%s: could not get bootram phy addr\n", __func__); + of_node_put(sram_np); return ret; } rk3288_bootram_phy = res.start;