Message-ID: <CACMJSevZQgik7S-62fz9H7+Mib+W0CgYMV4GyWjYV7N_E6iHVQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Fri, 15 Sep 2023 21:27:11 +0200
From:   Bartosz Golaszewski <bartosz.golaszewski@...aro.org>
To:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:     Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@...il.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
        akpm@...ux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: Buggy __free(kfree) usage pattern already in tree

On Fri, 15 Sept 2023 at 21:06, Linus Torvalds
<torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
>
> On Fri, 15 Sept 2023 at 10:22, Bartosz Golaszewski
> <bartosz.golaszewski@...aro.org> wrote:
> >
> > IMO this feature has much more potential at fixing existing memory
> > leaks than introducing new ones. I agree, I should have been more
> > careful, but I wouldn't exaggerate the issue. It's a bug, I sent a
> > fix, it'll be fine in a few days. I hope it won't be seen as an
> > argument against __free(). It just needs some time to mature.
>
> Honestly, I think your "fix" is still wrong.
>
> It may *work*, but it's against the whole spirit of having an
> allocation paired with the "this is how you free it".
>
> Your model of is fundamentally fragile, and honestly, it's disgusting.
>
> The fact that you literally have
>
>         char ***line_names
>
> as an argument should have made you wonder. Yes, we have triple
> indirect pointers in some other parts of the tree, but it sure isn't a
> "feature".
>
> The thing is, your cleanup function should mirror your allocation
> function. It didn't, and it caused a bug.
>
> And it STILL DOES NOT, even with your change.
>
> So I claim you are completely mis-using the whole __free thing. What
> you are doing is simply WRONG.
>
> And unless you can do it right, I will revert that change of yours to
> mis-use the cleanup functions, because I do not want anybody else to
> look at your code and get all the wrong ideas.
>
> Seriously.
>
> So look at your code, and DO IT RIGHT. Don't try to claim that
> "kfree()" is the cleanup function for gpio_sim_make_line_names().
> Because it really isn't. One free's a random pointer. Another returns
> a complex data structure *and* a count. They aren't inverses.
>
> I don't care ONE WHIT if you have learnt to use these kinds of things
> from GLib/GObject, and if that kind of disgusting behavior is ok
> there.
>
> It's not going to fly in the kernel.
>
> So your pattern needs to be something like this:
>
>         struct X *p __free(freeXYZ) = allocXYZ();
>
> and ABSOLUTELY NOTHING ELSE.  So if you use __free(kfree), it looks like
>
>         struct obj *p __free(kfree) = kmalloc(...);
>
> and not some different variation of it.
>
> And if you want to do something more complex, we literally have that
> "CLASS()" abstraction to make the above pattern particularly easy to
> use. Use it.
>
> But don't abuse the very special 'kmalloc/kfree' class that we have as
> an example. That's for kmalloc/kfree pairs, not for your "char
> ***line_names" thing.
>
> Now, Just to give you a very concrete example, here are two TOTALLY
> UNTESTED patches.
>
> I wrote two, because there's two ways to fix this properly as per
> above, and use those functions properly.
>
> The *SANE* way is to just re-organize the code to count things
> separately, and then you can allocate it properly with a sane
>
>     char **line_names __free(kfree) = kcalloc(lines,
> sizeof(*line_names), GFP_KERNEL);
>
> and not have that crazy "count and fill and return both the count and
> the lines" model at all. The above pairs the constructor and
> destructor correctly and clearly.
>
> So that's the first "maybe-sane.diff" version. It may be untested,
> it's probably still buggy due to that, but it is what I *think* you
> should model the real fix around.
>
> The second patch is WAY overkill, and actually creates a "class" for
> this all, and keeps the old broken "count and fill in one go", and
> returns that *one* value that is just the class, and has a destructor
> for that class etc etc.
>
> It's completely broken and ridiculously over-complicated for something
> like this, but it's trying to document that way of doing things. For
> other things that aren't just one-offs, that whole CLASS() model may
> be the right one.
>
> Either of these patches *might* work, but honestly, both of them are
> likely broken. The second one in particular is almost certainly buggy
> just because it's such a crazy overkill solution, but partly *because*
> of how crazy overkill it is, I think it might be a useful example of
> what *can* be done.
>
> Again: UNTESTED. They both build for me, but that doesn't say much.
>
>                 Linus

Understood. I'll go with a modified version of maybe-sane. I'll send a
v2 tomorrow and make sure to Cc you.

WRT the silly diff: we have a bunch of helpers centered around string
arrays in the kernel. I think it would make sense to package a string
array into a class because right now we have functions like
kfree_strarray() which takes the pointer to the array AND the number
of strings to free. So it may not be that silly in the end. But that's
a different story.

Bartosz

Powered by blists - more mailing lists