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:   Thu, 29 Sep 2022 09:10:03 +0300
From:   Leon Romanovsky <leon@kernel.org>
To:     asmadeus@codewreck.org
Cc:     Christian Schoenebeck <linux_oss@crudebyte.com>,
        syzbot <syzbot+67d13108d855f451cafc@syzkaller.appspotmail.com>,
        davem@davemloft.net, edumazet@google.com, ericvh@gmail.com,
        kuba@kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, lucho@ionkov.net,
        netdev@vger.kernel.org, pabeni@redhat.com,
        syzkaller-bugs@googlegroups.com,
        v9fs-developer@lists.sourceforge.net
Subject: Re: [syzbot] KASAN: use-after-free Read in rdma_close
Message-ID: <YzU2u+hEmx0kZhb5@unreal>
References: <00000000000015ac7905e97ebaed@google.com>
 <YzQuoqyGsooyDfId@codewreck.org>
 <YzQ12+jtARpwS5bw@unreal>
 <1783490.kFEjeSjHVE@silver>
 <YzTCOGCo5mIxwf9S@codewreck.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <YzTCOGCo5mIxwf9S@codewreck.org>
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Sep 29, 2022 at 06:52:56AM +0900, asmadeus@codewreck.org wrote:

<...>

> > From technical perspective, yes, destruction in reverse order is usually the 
> > better way to go. Whether I would carve that in stone, without any exception, 
> > probably not.
> 
> I think it's a tradeoff really.
> Unrolling in place is great, don't get me wrong, but it's also easy to
> miss things when adding code later on -- we actually just did that and
> got another kasan report which made me factor things in to future-proof
> the code.
> 
> Having a single place of truth that knows how to "untangle" and properly
> free a struct, making sure it is noop for parts of the struct that
> haven't been initialized yet, is less of a burden for me to think about.

It is not bikeshedding or tradeoff, but matter of well-proven coding
patterns, which are very helpful for review and code maintaining.

Thanks