Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Date:   Tue, 12 Jul 2022 10:51:01 -0400
From:   Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>
To:     Zheng Yejian <zhengyejian1@huawei.com>
Cc:     <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, <mingo@redhat.com>,
        <stable@vger.kernel.org>, <tom.zanussi@linux.intel.com>,
        <trix@redhat.com>, <zhangjinhao2@huawei.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] tracing/histograms: Fix memory leak problem
Message-ID: <20220712105101.49020368@gandalf.local.home>
In-Reply-To: <20220712114844.158722-1-zhengyejian1@huawei.com>
References: <20220711115211.4f613cbe@gandalf.local.home>
        <20220712114844.158722-1-zhengyejian1@huawei.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, 12 Jul 2022 19:48:44 +0800
Zheng Yejian <zhengyejian1@huawei.com> wrote:

> Since I'm not very familiar with trace_events_hist.c, I roughly conclude that:
>   1. warning 1/3/6 are plausible but false-positive;
>   2. warning 2/4/5 seems positive although they don't cause practical problems because
> elt_data->field_var_str[i] / ref_field->system / ref_field->name can be 'NULL'
> on 'kfree'. Do we need to explicitly check 'NULL' there?

It's confusing code. Both Tom and I missed it as well.

-- Steve