Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::3:6 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::3:6;
Date:   Fri, 15 Sep 2023 23:32:31 +0200
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc:     Bartosz Golaszewski <bartosz.golaszewski@linaro.org>,
        Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@gmail.com>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org>,
        akpm@linux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: Buggy __free(kfree) usage pattern already in tree
Message-ID: <20230915213231.GB23174@noisy.programming.kicks-ass.net>
References: <07c32bf1-6c1a-49d9-b97d-f0ae4a2b42ab@p183>
 <CAHk-=whO1+-4ALjFWSE0kzytz1kEbWPvy3xWvcUP1dJ4t-QqkA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CACMJSetxQi+t3SBXu6OvBbmxV8AbX2CfdSA9JvF1chLJSU9Ppw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAHk-=wgRHiV5VSxtfXA4S6aLUmcQYEuB67u3BJPJPtuESs1JyA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CACMJSevZQgik7S-62fz9H7+Mib+W0CgYMV4GyWjYV7N_E6iHVQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CACMJSevrJ5KSPAZVheXkNaYj8KQFD8ck55kU_E4vEj4vzR8wnQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAHk-=wicfvWPuRVDG5R1mZSxD8Xg=-0nLOiHay2T_UJ0yDX42g@mail.gmail.com>
 <20230915210851.GA23174@noisy.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <CAHk-=whvOGL3aNhtps0YksGtzvaob_bvZpbaTcVEqGwNMxB6xg@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAHk-=whvOGL3aNhtps0YksGtzvaob_bvZpbaTcVEqGwNMxB6xg@mail.gmail.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, Sep 15, 2023 at 02:22:02PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:

> Naming is hard, let's not make it worse by making it actively misleading.

I actually did use the DEFINE_FREE() helper, will go fix. Because yes,
free is not the right word in this case.

> And honestly, I think the above is actually a *HORIBLE* argument for
> doing that "initialize to NULL, change later". I think the above is
> exactly the kind of code that we ABSOLUTELY DO NOT WANT.
> 
> You should aim for a nice
> 
>         struct rw_semaphore *struct rw_semaphore *exec_update_lock
>             __cleanup(release_exec_update_lock) = get_exec_update_lock(task);

Ah, that might be nicer still than the class thing I proposed in a
follow up email.

It also got me thinking about named_guard() for the myriad of
conditional locks we have.

	named_guard(try_mutex, foo_guard)(&foo->lock);
	if (foo_guard) {
		// we got the lock, do our thing
	}


or

	named_guard(interruptible_mutex, foo_guard)(&foo->lock);
	if (!foo_guard)
		return -EINTR;


Are these sane patterns?