From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.1 required=3.0 tests=DKIMWL_WL_HIGH,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SIGNED_OFF_BY,SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 66D11C43603 for ; Thu, 12 Dec 2019 14:00:17 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 39DCE2173E for ; Thu, 12 Dec 2019 14:00:17 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=default; t=1576159217; bh=w6j7nt8EVQhGqeeabig/3mMtxBUSwyE1b0/3qRLnlMY=; h=References:In-Reply-To:From:Date:Subject:To:Cc:List-ID:From; b=IGEyQcjFjTyAAFhWJ8D79SBUJnhW0InOfxOWFedbpO7yMeF9G/QQ5TJooFZh7VZoT v0kMuJ7S+KVXV35qwWCbaTcNi8DXie1UcVF1UT8YUr0rbYKbZXG0f3kqHV58HgTdWP Bm6AjoKLCtDhg6G2OiCxyYfdX2xk7cf/LrgiTWXw= Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1729523AbfLLOAQ (ORCPT ); Thu, 12 Dec 2019 09:00:16 -0500 Received: from mail.kernel.org ([198.145.29.99]:54994 "EHLO mail.kernel.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1729524AbfLLOAQ (ORCPT ); Thu, 12 Dec 2019 09:00:16 -0500 Received: from mail-qk1-f173.google.com (mail-qk1-f173.google.com [209.85.222.173]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 922A021655; Thu, 12 Dec 2019 14:00:15 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=default; t=1576159215; bh=w6j7nt8EVQhGqeeabig/3mMtxBUSwyE1b0/3qRLnlMY=; h=References:In-Reply-To:From:Date:Subject:To:Cc:From; b=rmi1gkkd4I+2394B3wixXdiXO3A3D0r2w2dH7yVZGFDe1Z8I0ja30fsJ2t8IZ+rCh Duh2X+pXYS65dQtBq5brAD93r3mic178CAaeGzI1CbWc5IyIJ4BKhxWIqg+jTrDGWr HUvkRctVRdbDGf5w3EXNugc6xO4/q/zWl++5AmOk= Received: by mail-qk1-f173.google.com with SMTP id r14so1618225qke.13; Thu, 12 Dec 2019 06:00:15 -0800 (PST) X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAWpxBDC38pzafU1+iiYfc2q4ZKd66/w08OALT6gF81m3mqlQhTz MTgHxZ5Vg2XRB2MSw7gF2TGcwbP7BhM/0X59WQ== X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqylVaRXooiFXE5LLn2gb6i2E8GDU2gD9ANvwzpoLnrIk+YG9DZFfJ8BliPuj1AETH76SC8tJJD1gjvt1ijX7t4= X-Received: by 2002:ae9:f205:: with SMTP id m5mr8219015qkg.152.1576159214753; Thu, 12 Dec 2019 06:00:14 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <1575965693-30395-1-git-send-email-frowand.list@gmail.com> <20191211201856.GA21857@bogus> <486ce60c-8a74-7baf-1054-c81c83e79e56@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <486ce60c-8a74-7baf-1054-c81c83e79e56@gmail.com> From: Rob Herring Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2019 08:00:03 -0600 X-Gmail-Original-Message-ID: Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH] of: refcount leak when phandle_cache entry replaced To: Frank Rowand Cc: devicetree@vger.kernel.org, "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Sender: devicetree-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: devicetree@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Dec 12, 2019 at 5:17 AM Frank Rowand wrote: > > On 12/11/19 2:18 PM, Rob Herring wrote: > > On Tue, 10 Dec 2019 02:14:53 -0600, frowand.list@gmail.com wrote: > >> From: Frank Rowand > >> > >> of_find_node_by_phandle() does not do an of_node_put() of the existing > >> node in a phandle cache entry when that node is replaced by a new node. > >> > >> Reported-by: Rob Herring > >> Fixes: b8a9ac1a5b99 ("of: of_node_get()/of_node_put() nodes held in phandle cache") > >> Signed-off-by: Frank Rowand > >> --- > >> > >> Checkpatch will warn about a line over 80 characters. Let me know > >> if that bothers you. > >> > >> drivers/of/base.c | 2 ++ > >> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+) > >> > > > > Applied, thanks. > > > > Rob > > > > If the rework patch of the cache that you posted shortly after accepting > my patch, then my patch becomes not needed and is just extra noise in the > history. Once your patch finishes review (I am assuming it probably > will), then my patch should be reverted. The question is what to backport: nothing, this patch or mine? My thought was to apply this mainly to backport. If you're fine with nothing or mine, then we can drop it. I'm a bit nervous marking mine for stable. Rob