Re: [PATCH v5 39/42] drivers/of: Unflatten nodes equal or deeper than specified level
From: Grant Likely <hidden>
Date: 2015-06-30 17:47:04
Also in:
linux-pci, linuxppc-dev
On Thu, 4 Jun 2015 16:42:08 +1000 , Gavin Shan [off-list ref] wrote:
quoted hunk
unflatten_dt_node() is called recursively to unflatten FDT nodes with the assumption that FDT blob has only one root node, which isn't true when the FDT blob represents device sub-tree. The patch improves the function to supporting device sub-tree that have multiple root nodes: * Rename original unflatten_dt_node() to __unflatten_dt_node(). * Wrapper unflatten_dt_node() calls __unflatten_dt_node() with adjusted current node depth to 1 to avoid underflow. Signed-off-by: Gavin Shan <redacted> --- v5: * Split from PATCH[v4 19/21] * Fixed "line over 80 characters" from checkpatch.pl --- drivers/of/fdt.c | 56 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------------------ 1 file changed, 38 insertions(+), 18 deletions(-)diff --git a/drivers/of/fdt.c b/drivers/of/fdt.c index cde35c5d01..b87c157 100644 --- a/drivers/of/fdt.c +++ b/drivers/of/fdt.c@@ -28,6 +28,8 @@ #include <asm/setup.h> /* for COMMAND_LINE_SIZE */ #include <asm/page.h> +static int cur_node_depth; +
eeeek! We'll never be able to call this concurrently this way. That will create theoretical race conditions in the overlay code. (actually, you didn't introduce this problem, see below...)
quoted hunk
/* * of_fdt_limit_memory - limit the number of regions in the /memory node * @limit: maximum entries@@ -161,27 +163,26 @@ static void *unflatten_dt_alloc(void **mem, unsigned long size, } /** - * unflatten_dt_node - Alloc and populate a device_node from the flat tree + * __unflatten_dt_node - Alloc and populate a device_node from the flat tree * @blob: The parent device tree blob * @mem: Memory chunk to use for allocating device nodes and properties * @p: pointer to node in flat tree * @dad: Parent struct device_node * @fpsize: Size of the node path up at the current depth. */ -static void * unflatten_dt_node(void *blob, - void *mem, - int *poffset, - struct device_node *dad, - struct device_node **nodepp, - unsigned long fpsize, - bool dryrun) +static void *__unflatten_dt_node(void *blob, + void *mem, + int *poffset, + struct device_node *dad, + struct device_node **nodepp, + unsigned long fpsize, + bool dryrun)
nitpick: If you resist the temptation to reflow indentation, then the diffstat is smaller.
quoted hunk
{ const __be32 *p; struct device_node *np; struct property *pp, **prev_pp = NULL; const char *pathp; unsigned int l, allocl; - static int depth = 0;
Hmmmm.. looks like the race condition is already there. Well that's no good. If you move *depth into the parameters to unflatten_dt_node(), then you can solve both problems at once without having to create a __ version of the function. That will be a cleaner solution overall.
quoted hunk
int old_depth; int offset; int has_name = 0;@@ -334,13 +335,19 @@ static void * unflatten_dt_node(void *blob, np->type = "<NULL>"; } - old_depth = depth; - *poffset = fdt_next_node(blob, *poffset, &depth); - if (depth < 0) - depth = 0; - while (*poffset > 0 && depth > old_depth) - mem = unflatten_dt_node(blob, mem, poffset, np, NULL, - fpsize, dryrun); + old_depth = cur_node_depth; + *poffset = fdt_next_node(blob, *poffset, &cur_node_depth); + while (*poffset > 0) {
What is the reasoning here? Why change to looking for poffset > 0?
quoted hunk
+ if (cur_node_depth < old_depth) + break; + + if (cur_node_depth == old_depth) + mem = __unflatten_dt_node(blob, mem, poffset, + dad, NULL, fpsize, dryrun); + else if (cur_node_depth > old_depth) + mem = __unflatten_dt_node(blob, mem, poffset, + np, NULL, fpsize, dryrun);
Ditto here, please describe the purpose of the new logic.
quoted hunk
+ } if (*poffset < 0 && *poffset != -FDT_ERR_NOTFOUND) pr_err("unflatten: error %d processing FDT\n", *poffset);@@ -366,6 +373,18 @@ static void * unflatten_dt_node(void *blob, return mem; } +static void *unflatten_dt_node(void *blob, + void *mem, + int *poffset, + struct device_node *dad, + struct device_node **nodepp, + bool dryrun) +{ + cur_node_depth = 1; + return __unflatten_dt_node(blob, mem, poffset, + dad, nodepp, 0, dryrun); +} + /** * __unflatten_device_tree - create tree of device_nodes from flat blob *@@ -405,7 +424,8 @@ static void __unflatten_device_tree(void *blob, /* First pass, scan for size */ start = 0; - size = (unsigned long)unflatten_dt_node(blob, NULL, &start, NULL, NULL, 0, true); + size = (unsigned long)unflatten_dt_node(blob, NULL, &start, + NULL, NULL, true); size = ALIGN(size, 4); pr_debug(" size is %lx, allocating...\n", size);@@ -420,7 +440,7 @@ static void __unflatten_device_tree(void *blob, /* Second pass, do actual unflattening */ start = 0; - unflatten_dt_node(blob, mem, &start, NULL, mynodes, 0, false); + unflatten_dt_node(blob, mem, &start, NULL, mynodes, false); if (be32_to_cpup(mem + size) != 0xdeadbeef) pr_warning("End of tree marker overwritten: %08x\n", be32_to_cpup(mem + size));-- 2.1.0
-- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in the body of a message to majordomo-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html