Hi,
On 01/02/2023 17:05, Vikram Garhwal wrote:
On 12/7/22 8:31 AM, Julien Grall wrote:
Signed-off-by: Vikram Garhwal <vikram.garh...@amd.com>
---
xen/common/device_tree.c | 27 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++
xen/include/xen/device_tree.h | 6 ++++++
2 files changed, 33 insertions(+)
diff --git a/xen/common/device_tree.c b/xen/common/device_tree.c
index acf26a411d..51ee2a5edf 100644
--- a/xen/common/device_tree.c
+++ b/xen/common/device_tree.c
@@ -140,6 +140,8 @@ const struct dt_property *dt_find_property(const
struct dt_device_node *np,
if ( !np )
return NULL;
+ read_lock(&dt_host->lock);
+
for ( pp = np->properties; pp; pp = pp->next )
{
if ( dt_prop_cmp(pp->name, name) == 0 )
@@ -150,6 +152,7 @@ const struct dt_property *dt_find_property(const
struct dt_device_node *np,
}
}
+ read_unlock(&dt_host->lock);
return pp;
}
@@ -336,11 +339,14 @@ struct dt_device_node
*dt_find_node_by_name(struct dt_device_node *from,
struct dt_device_node *np;
struct dt_device_node *dt;
+ read_lock(&dt_host->lock);
+
dt = from ? from->allnext : dt_host;
dt_for_each_device_node(dt, np)
if ( np->name && (dt_node_cmp(np->name, name) == 0) )
break;
+ read_unlock(&dt_host->lock);
return np;
... I was expecting the read lock to also protect the value returned
from being freed. But this is not the case.
Okay. Shall I remove the lock from here and perhaps add it when
dt_find_node_by_name() and other related functions are called?
It is a possibility. I would need to see the end result to be sure a
lock is actually suitable.
Maybe we will end up to need a refcounting instead if we keep the DT
node for longer.
Cheers,
--
Julien Grall
