On Sat, 11 Nov 2017, Johan Hovold wrote:
> A helper purported to look up a child node based on its name was using
> the wrong of-helper and ended up prematurely freeing the parent of-node
> while leaking any matching node.
>
> To make things worse, any matching node would not even necessarily be
On Mon, Nov 13, 2017 at 10:13:42PM +0200, Peter Ujfalusi wrote:
> On 11/11/2017 05:38 PM, Johan Hovold wrote:
> > A helper purported to look up a child node based on its name was using
> > the wrong of-helper and ended up prematurely freeing the parent of-node
> > while leaking any matching node.
>
On 11/11/2017 05:38 PM, Johan Hovold wrote:
> A helper purported to look up a child node based on its name was using
> the wrong of-helper and ended up prematurely freeing the parent of-node
> while leaking any matching node.
>
> To make things worse, any matching node would not even necessarily b
On Sat, 11 Nov 2017, Johan Hovold wrote:
> A helper purported to look up a child node based on its name was using
> the wrong of-helper and ended up prematurely freeing the parent of-node
> while leaking any matching node.
>
> To make things worse, any matching node would not even necessarily be
A helper purported to look up a child node based on its name was using
the wrong of-helper and ended up prematurely freeing the parent of-node
while leaking any matching node.
To make things worse, any matching node would not even necessarily be a
child node as the whole device tree was searched d
5 matches
Mail list logo
