Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-111672-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 147.75.80.249 as permitted sender) client-ip=147.75.80.249;
Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2024 08:03:37 -0700
From: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>
To: Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@inria.fr>
Cc: Jesse Brandeburg <jesse.brandeburg@intel.com>, 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: <20240322080337.77a10cfd@kernel.org>
In-Reply-To: <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>
	<82b49991-eb5a-7e8c-67e0-b0fd932f40b4@inria.fr>
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Fri, 22 Mar 2024 03:24:56 -0400 (EDT) Julia Lawall wrote:
> > 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 =F0=9F=A4=B7=EF=B8=8F =20
>=20
> 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.

Good point! References are likely a very good use case for this sort
of thing. The act of bumping a counter lacks the feeling of lifetime
we get with an object :(