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;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20220722171534.3576419-1-dlatypov@google.com> <20220722171534.3576419-5-dlatypov@google.com>
In-Reply-To: <20220722171534.3576419-5-dlatypov@google.com>
From:   Brendan Higgins <brendanhiggins@google.com>
Date:   Wed, 5 Oct 2022 16:40:54 -0400
Message-ID: <CAFd5g47oBwrxFeKHKrppxaLCAPqLa=r-zNvs0QJEXiqu8ZYhYg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 5/5] kunit: make kunit_kfree(NULL) a no-op to match kfree()
To:     Daniel Latypov <dlatypov@google.com>
Cc:     davidgow@google.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        kunit-dev@googlegroups.com, linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org,
        skhan@linuxfoundation.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, Jul 22, 2022 at 1:15 PM Daniel Latypov <dlatypov@google.com> wrote:
>
> The real kfree() function will silently return when given a NULL.
> So a user might reasonably think they can write the following code:
>   char *buffer = NULL;
>   if (param->use_buffer) buffer = kunit_kzalloc(test, 10, GFP_KERNEL);
>   ...
>   kunit_kfree(test, buffer);
>
> As-is, kunit_kfree() will mark the test as FAILED when buffer is NULL.
> (And in earlier times, it would segfault).
>
> Let's match the semantics of kfree().
>
> Suggested-by: David Gow <davidgow@google.com>
> Signed-off-by: Daniel Latypov <dlatypov@google.com>

Reviewed-by: Brendan Higgins <brendanhiggins@google.com>