From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751104AbeDXU6b (ORCPT ); Tue, 24 Apr 2018 16:58:31 -0400 Received: from mail-pf0-f196.google.com ([209.85.192.196]:33269 "EHLO mail-pf0-f196.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750735AbeDXU63 (ORCPT ); Tue, 24 Apr 2018 16:58:29 -0400 X-Google-Smtp-Source: AIpwx49bnjb58Z4lG5gXnaIq+KFFxMR6lnha5j6tiPb4CAW8tVoWbeKnEcCl+xVHDniYmXFsJl2jKA== Subject: Re: [PATCH] of: overlay: Stop leaking resources on overlay removal To: Jan Kiszka , Pantelis Antoniou , Rob Herring , devicetree Cc: Linux Kernel Mailing List , Alan Tull References: <097f1b01-6cb4-8dcb-0498-7b4c59a7ea53@siemens.com> <7aca82c1-a02c-2f84-bc32-6e8a118ba601@gmail.com> <90e7da9d-d40a-17f1-e627-873f58a3dce5@siemens.com> From: Frank Rowand Message-ID: Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2018 13:58:27 -0700 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.7.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <90e7da9d-d40a-17f1-e627-873f58a3dce5@siemens.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 04/24/18 10:50, Jan Kiszka wrote: > On 2018-04-24 19:44, Frank Rowand wrote: >> On 04/24/18 09:19, Jan Kiszka wrote: >>> Only the overlay notifier callbacks have a chance to potentially get >>> hold of references to those two resources, but they do not store them. >>> So it is safe to stop the intentional leaking. >>> >>> See also https://lkml.org/lkml/2018/4/23/1063 and following. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Jan Kiszka >>> --- >>> >>> Ideally, we sort out any remaining worries during the 4.17-rc cycle. >>> >>> drivers/of/overlay.c | 13 ++----------- >>> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-) >>> >>> diff --git a/drivers/of/overlay.c b/drivers/of/overlay.c >>> index b35fe88f1851..3553f1f57a62 100644 >>> --- a/drivers/of/overlay.c >>> +++ b/drivers/of/overlay.c >>> @@ -671,17 +671,8 @@ static void free_overlay_changeset(struct overlay_changeset *ovcs) >>> of_node_put(ovcs->fragments[i].overlay); >>> } >>> kfree(ovcs->fragments); >>> - >>> - /* >>> - * TODO >>> - * >>> - * would like to: kfree(ovcs->overlay_tree); >>> - * but can not since drivers may have pointers into this data >>> - * >>> - * would like to: kfree(ovcs->fdt); >>> - * but can not since drivers may have pointers into this data >>> - */ >>> - >>> + kfree(ovcs->overlay_tree); >>> + kfree(ovcs->fdt); >>> kfree(ovcs); >>> } >>> >>> >> >> Nack. It is premature to submit this while the conversation is >> continuing in the other thread. >> >> I'll continue the conversation in the other thread. >> > > Well, at least the strongest argument has been resolved now, the > notifier topic. Curious to learn what remains. As I noted, we should > work hard to sort out the API regression prior to the release. Nope, the notifier discussion continues in the other thread.