Frank Rowand [off-list ref] writes:
On 12/11/18 8:07 AM, Rob Herring wrote:
quoted
On Tue, Dec 11, 2018 at 7:29 AM Michael Ellerman [off-list ref] wrote:
...
quoted
quoted
diff --git a/drivers/of/base.c b/drivers/of/base.c
index 09692c9b32a7..d8e4534c0686 100644
--- a/drivers/of/base.c
+++ b/drivers/of/base.c
@@ -1190,6 +1190,10 @@ 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 we find a detached node, remove it */
+ if (of_node_check_flag(np, OF_DETACHED))
+ np = phandle_cache[masked_handle] = NULL;
The bug you found exposes a couple of different issues, a little bit
deeper than the proposed fix. I'll work on a fuller fix tonight or
tomorrow.
OK thanks.
quoted
I'm wondering if we should explicitly remove the node from the cache
when we set OF_DETACHED. Otherwise, it could be possible that the node
pointer has been freed already. Or maybe we need both?
Yes, it should be explicitly removed. I may also add in a paranoia check in
of_find_node_by_phandle().
That seems best to me.
cheers