Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-110866-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 2604:1380:40f1:3f00::1 as permitted sender) client-ip=2604:1380:40f1:3f00::1;
Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2024 18:56:40 -0700
From: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>
To: Jesse Brandeburg <jesse.brandeburg@intel.com>
Cc: Julia Lawall <Julia.Lawall@inria.fr>, Andy Shevchenko
 <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>, Dan Carpenter
 <dan.carpenter@linaro.org>, <kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org>,
 <netdev@vger.kernel.org>, <intel-wired-lan@lists.osuosl.org>, "Maciej
 Fijalkowski" <maciej.fijalkowski@intel.com>, Przemek Kitszel
 <przemyslaw.kitszel@intel.com>, Tony Nguyen <anthony.l.nguyen@intel.com>,
 LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, Alexander Lobakin
 <aleksander.lobakin@intel.com>, David Laight <David.Laight@aculab.com>,
 "David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>, Eric Dumazet
 <edumazet@google.com>, Jiri Pirko <jiri@resnulli.us>, "Jonathan Cameron"
 <jic23@kernel.org>, Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>, Lukasz Czapnik
 <lukasz.czapnik@intel.com>, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@redhat.com>, "Pucha
 Himasekhar Reddy" <himasekharx.reddy.pucha@intel.com>, Dan Williams
 <dan.j.williams@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net] ice: Fix freeing uninitialized pointers
Message-ID: <20240321185640.6f7f4d6b@kernel.org>
In-Reply-To: <20240321184828.3e22c698@kernel.org>
References: <e5172afb-427b-423e-877a-10352cf4a007@web.de>
	<F2FBADE8-EDF9-4987-A97B-CF4D2D1452E0@inria.fr>
	<b9dc2c7a-2688-4a7b-8482-1e762c39449c@intel.com>
	<20240321184828.3e22c698@kernel.org>
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Thu, 21 Mar 2024 18:48:28 -0700 Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> On Thu, 21 Mar 2024 15:27:47 -0700 Jesse Brandeburg wrote:
> > The gist of it is that we should instead be using inline declarations,=
=20
> > which I also agree is a reasonable style for this. It more clearly show=
s=20
> > the __free(kfree) and the allocation (kzalloc, kcalloc, etc) on the sam=
e=20
> > (or virtually the same) line of code.
> >=20
> > I'm curious if Jakub would dislike this less? Accept? =20
>=20
> At present I find this construct unreadable.
> I may get used to it, hard to say.
>=20
> Also I don't see the benefit of the auto-freeing construct,
> I'd venture a guess that all the bugs it may prevent would
> have been caught by smatch. But I'm an old curmudgeon stuck
> in my ways. Feel free to experiment in Intel drivers, and we'll
> see how it works out =F0=9F=A4=B7=EF=B8=8F

On further reflection, yes, of all the bad options moving the
declarations inline in this particular case is probably the
least bad option.