Hi Frank,
frowand.l...@gmail.com writes:
> From: Frank Rowand <frank.row...@sony.com>
>
> Non-overlay dynamic devicetree node removal may leave the node in
> the phandle cache. Subsequent calls to of_find_node_by_phandle()
> will incorrectly find the stale entry. Remove the node from the
> cache.
>
> Add paranoia checks in of_find_node_by_phandle() as a second level
> of defense (do not return cached node if detached, do not add node
> to cache if detached).
>
> Reported-by: Michael Bringmann <m...@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
> Signed-off-by: Frank Rowand <frank.row...@sony.com>
> ---
Similarly here can we add:
Fixes: 0b3ce78e90fc ("of: cache phandle nodes to reduce cost of
of_find_node_by_phandle()")
Cc: sta...@vger.kernel.org # v4.17+
Thanks for doing this series.
Some minor comments below.
> diff --git a/drivers/of/base.c b/drivers/of/base.c
> index 6c33d63361b8..ad71864cecf5 100644
> --- a/drivers/of/base.c
> +++ b/drivers/of/base.c
> @@ -162,6 +162,27 @@ int of_free_phandle_cache(void)
> late_initcall_sync(of_free_phandle_cache);
> #endif
>
> +/*
> + * Caller must hold devtree_lock.
> + */
> +void __of_free_phandle_cache_entry(phandle handle)
> +{
> + phandle masked_handle;
> +
> + if (!handle)
> + return;
We could fold the phandle_cache check into that if and return early for
both cases couldn't we?
> + masked_handle = handle & phandle_cache_mask;
> +
> + if (phandle_cache) {
Meaning this wouldn't be necessary.
> + if (phandle_cache[masked_handle] &&
> + handle == phandle_cache[masked_handle]->phandle) {
> + of_node_put(phandle_cache[masked_handle]);
> + phandle_cache[masked_handle] = NULL;
> + }
A temporary would help the readability here I think, eg:
struct device_node *np;
np = phandle_cache[masked_handle];
if (np && handle == np->phandle) {
of_node_put(np);
phandle_cache[masked_handle] = NULL;
}
> @@ -1209,11 +1230,18 @@ 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 (np && of_node_check_flag(np, OF_DETACHED)) {
> + WARN_ON(1);
> + of_node_put(np);
Do we really want to do the put here?
We're here because something has gone wrong, possibly even memory
corruption such that np is not even pointing at a device node anymore.
So it seems like it would be safer to just leave the ref count alone,
possibly leak a small amount of memory, and NULL out the reference.
cheers
