Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] of: __of_detach_node() - remove node from phandle cache

[Michael Ellerman]

Hi Frank,

frowand.list@xxxxxxxxx writes:
> From: Frank Rowand <frank.rowand@xxxxxxxx>
>
> Non-overlay dynamic devicetree node removal may leave the node in
> the phandle cache.  Subsequent calls to of_find_node_by_phandle()
> will incorrectly find the stale entry.  Remove the node from the
> cache.
>
> Add paranoia checks in of_find_node_by_phandle() as a second level
> of defense (do not return cached node if detached, do not add node
> to cache if detached).
>
> Reported-by: Michael Bringmann <mwb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Signed-off-by: Frank Rowand <frank.rowand@xxxxxxxx>
> ---

Similarly here can we add:

Fixes: 0b3ce78e90fc ("of: cache phandle nodes to reduce cost of of_find_node_by_phandle()")
Cc: stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx # v4.17+


Thanks for doing this series.

Some minor comments below.

> diff --git a/drivers/of/base.c b/drivers/of/base.c
> index 6c33d63361b8..ad71864cecf5 100644
> --- a/drivers/of/base.c
> +++ b/drivers/of/base.c
> @@ -162,6 +162,27 @@ int of_free_phandle_cache(void)
>  late_initcall_sync(of_free_phandle_cache);
>  #endif
>  
> +/*
> + * Caller must hold devtree_lock.
> + */
> +void __of_free_phandle_cache_entry(phandle handle)
> +{
> +	phandle masked_handle;
> +
> +	if (!handle)
> +		return;

We could fold the phandle_cache check into that if and return early for
both cases couldn't we?

> +	masked_handle = handle & phandle_cache_mask;
> +
> +	if (phandle_cache) {

Meaning this wouldn't be necessary.

> +		if (phandle_cache[masked_handle] &&
> +		    handle == phandle_cache[masked_handle]->phandle) {
> +			of_node_put(phandle_cache[masked_handle]);
> +			phandle_cache[masked_handle] = NULL;
> +		}

A temporary would help the readability here I think, eg:

	struct device_node *np;
        np = phandle_cache[masked_handle];

	if (np && handle == np->phandle) {
		of_node_put(np);
		phandle_cache[masked_handle] = NULL;
	}

> @@ -1209,11 +1230,18 @@ struct device_node *of_find_node_by_phandle(phandle handle)
>  		if (phandle_cache[masked_handle] &&
>  		    handle == phandle_cache[masked_handle]->phandle)
>  			np = phandle_cache[masked_handle];
> +		if (np && of_node_check_flag(np, OF_DETACHED)) {
> +			WARN_ON(1);
> +			of_node_put(np);

Do we really want to do the put here?

We're here because something has gone wrong, possibly even memory
corruption such that np is not even pointing at a device node anymore.
So it seems like it would be safer to just leave the ref count alone,
possibly leak a small amount of memory, and NULL out the reference.


cheers