Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-149009-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 2604:1380:40f1:3f00::1 as permitted sender) client-ip=2604:1380:40f1:3f00::1;
Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2024 20:49:42 +0300
From: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@linaro.org>
To: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@intel.com>
Cc: Zeng Heng <zengheng4@huawei.com>, linus.walleij@linaro.org,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, xiexiuqi@huawei.com,
	linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org, weiyongjun1@huawei.com,
	liwei391@huawei.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] pinctrl: devicetree: fix refcount leak in
 pinctrl_dt_to_map()
Message-ID: <fe83e07f-ca28-4c00-9b1b-7d16c63bad62@moroto.mountain>
References: <20240415105328.3651441-1-zengheng4@huawei.com>
 <Zh_rM04PspfXxlv_@smile.fi.intel.com>
 <d80e09d8-5f35-4865-9fe8-195b86527972@moroto.mountain>
 <ZiAC9zzSWume8063@smile.fi.intel.com>
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <ZiAC9zzSWume8063@smile.fi.intel.com>

On Wed, Apr 17, 2024 at 08:12:23PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 17, 2024 at 06:38:46PM +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> > On Wed, Apr 17, 2024 at 06:30:59PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > > On Mon, Apr 15, 2024 at 06:53:28PM +0800, Zeng Heng wrote:
> 
> ...
> 
> > > >  	for (state = 0; ; state++) {
> > > >  		/* Retrieve the pinctrl-* property */
> > > >  		propname = kasprintf(GFP_KERNEL, "pinctrl-%d", state);
> > > > -		if (!propname)
> > > > -			return -ENOMEM;
> > > > +		if (!propname) {
> > > > +			ret = -ENOMEM;
> > > > +			goto err;
> > > > +		}
> > > >  		prop = of_find_property(np, propname, &size);
> > > >  		kfree(propname);
> > > >  		if (!prop) {
> > > >  			if (state == 0) {
> > > > -				of_node_put(np);
> > > > -				return -ENODEV;
> > > > +				ret = -ENODEV;
> > > > +				goto err;
> > > 
> > > Has it been tested? How on earth is this a correct change?
> > > 
> > > We iterate over state numbers until we have properties available. This chunk is
> > > _successful_ exit path, we may not free parsed maps! Am I wrong?
> > 
> > In this path state == 0 so we haven't had a successful iteration yet.
> 
> Ah, indeed, this is not a status. Okay, makes sense, but calling that free
> function for the purpose of the putting of_node seems an overkill...

Sure, that's one way to look at it, but it's suspicious looking when
there is a direct return which is surrounded by gotos.  As I write this,
I remember that Smatch has a warning for code like that.

Probably we should add a comment to say:

	/* Return -ENODEV if the property 'pinctrl-0' is not present. */

regards,
dan carpenter