Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-111058-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 2604:1380:45d1:ec00::1 as permitted sender) client-ip=2604:1380:45d1:ec00::1;
Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2024 03:24:56 -0400 (EDT)
From: Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@inria.fr>
To: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>
cc: Jesse Brandeburg <jesse.brandeburg@intel.com>, 
    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
In-Reply-To: <20240321184828.3e22c698@kernel.org>
Message-ID: <82b49991-eb5a-7e8c-67e0-b0fd932f40b4@inria.fr>
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: multipart/mixed; boundary="8323329-551105037-1711092310=:3390"

  This message is in MIME format.  The first part should be readable text,
  while the remaining parts are likely unreadable without MIME-aware tools.

--8323329-551105037-1711092310=:3390
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT


On Thu, 21 Mar 2024, 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,
> > which I also agree is a reasonable style for this. It more clearly shows
> > the __free(kfree) and the allocation (kzalloc, kcalloc, etc) on the same
> > (or virtually the same) line of code.
> >
> > I'm curious if Jakub would dislike this less? Accept?
>
> At present I find this construct unreadable.
> I may get used to it, hard to say.
>
> 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 ????️

In my experiments with of_node_put, there seem to be many functions where
removing the frees makes the function much more readable.  But
kmalloc/kfree may be used in different contexts, where the management of
the memory is a smaller percentage of the overall code.  So the tradeoffs
may be different.

julia
--8323329-551105037-1711092310=:3390--