MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20230301185209.274134-1-jjhiblot@traphandler.com>
 <20230301185209.274134-3-jjhiblot@traphandler.com> <CAMuHMdVF337k+zyjpbzoDtWWDnYhM6eM3+As6UuZ7FCgASsMQg@mail.gmail.com>
 <7fa7f07f-d1e1-1e43-992c-4981c5810284@traphandler.com>
In-Reply-To: <7fa7f07f-d1e1-1e43-992c-4981c5810284@traphandler.com>
From:   Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org>
Date:   Sat, 4 Mar 2023 15:47:11 +0100
Message-ID: <CAMuHMdVdZatMYsc=367OuGotzYuo2-XVe5MAZdzh+kBs31=t5A@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] of: irq: make callers of of_irq_parse_one() release
 the device node
To:     Jean-Jacques Hiblot <jjhiblot@traphandler.com>
Cc:     saravanak@google.com, clement.leger@bootlin.com,
        Magnus Damm <magnus.damm@gmail.com>,
        Russell King <linux@armlinux.org.uk>,
        Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au>,
        Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@gmail.com>,
        Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@csgroup.eu>,
        zajec5@gmail.com, Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@linaro.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Claudiu Beznea <claudiu.beznea@microchip.com>,
        Marc Zyngier <maz@kernel.org>, afaerber@suse.de,
        Manivannan Sadhasivam <mani@kernel.org>,
        Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@dabbelt.com>,
        Paul Walmsley <paul.walmsley@sifive.com>,
        Chen-Yu Tsai <wens@csie.org>,
        Jernej Skrabec <jernej.skrabec@gmail.com>,
        Samuel Holland <samuel@sholland.org>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@kernel.org>,
        Frank Rowand <frowand.list@gmail.com>,
        Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@google.com>,
        Nishanth Menon <nm@ti.com>, ssantosh@kernel.org,
        mathias.nyman@intel.com, gregkh@linuxfoundation.org,
        thierry.reding@gmail.com, jonathanh@nvidia.com,
        linux-renesas-soc@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-actions@lists.infradead.org, linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org,
        linux-sunxi@lists.linux.dev, devicetree@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-pci@vger.kernel.org, linux-usb@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-tegra@vger.kernel.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT
Precedence: bulk

Hi Jean-Jacques,

On Sat, Mar 4, 2023 at 11:34 AM Jean-Jacques Hiblot
<jjhiblot@traphandler.com> wrote:
> On 02/03/2023 08:49, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> > On Wed, Mar 1, 2023 at 7:53 PM Jean-Jacques Hiblot
> > <jjhiblot@traphandler.com> wrote:
> >> of_irq_parse_one() does a get() on the device node returned in out_irq->np.
> >> Callers of of_irq_parse_one() must do a put() when they are done with it.
> >
> > What does "be done with it" really mean here?
> >
> >> Signed-off-by: Jean-Jacques Hiblot <jjhiblot@traphandler.com>
> >
> >> --- a/arch/arm/mach-shmobile/regulator-quirk-rcar-gen2.c
> >> +++ b/arch/arm/mach-shmobile/regulator-quirk-rcar-gen2.c
> >> @@ -184,6 +184,7 @@ static int __init rcar_gen2_regulator_quirk(void)
> >>                          kfree(quirk);
> >>                          continue;
> >>                  }
> >> +               of_node_put(argsa->np);
> >
> > The quirk object, which is a container of argsa, is still used below,
> > and stored in a linked list.  I agree argsa->np is not dereferenced,
> > but the pointer itself is still compared to other pointers.
>
> I fail to see when the pointers are compared. It looks to me that only
> the args are compared. Am I missing something ?

You're right, in upstream, there is no such check.
In my local tree, I have converted the comparisons below to use a new
helper of_phandle_args_eq() (which does compare the np member, too),
but that change never went upstream, as the other user of that helper
was rejected.

> In any case, looking more closely at the code, I guess that indeed the
> of_node_put() shouldn't be added here because this code expects that the
> nodes never go away. That is probably a good assertion in case of PMICs

OK.

> > IIUIC, calling of_node_put() might cause the reference count to drop to
> > zero, and the underlying struct node object to be deallocated.
> > So when a future reference to the same DT node will be taken, a new
> > struct node object will be allocated, and the pointer comparison below
> > will fail?

Gr{oetje,eeting}s,

                        Geert

-- 
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@linux-m68k.org

In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
                                -- Linus Torvalds