[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20250107103643.37a3b002@gandalf.local.home>
Date: Tue, 7 Jan 2025 10:36:43 -0500
From: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To: "Masami Hiramatsu (Google)" <mhiramat@...nel.org>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, Anil S Keshavamurthy
<anil.s.keshavamurthy@...el.com>, "David S . Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>, Oleg Nesterov
<oleg@...hat.com>, Tzvetomir Stoyanov <tz.stoyanov@...il.com>, Naveen N Rao
<naveen@...nel.org>, Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...nel.org>, Jason Baron
<jbaron@...mai.com>, Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@...nel.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-trace-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/5] tracing: Use __free() in trace_probe for cleanup
On Tue, 7 Jan 2025 20:50:25 +0900
"Masami Hiramatsu (Google)" <mhiramat@...nel.org> wrote:
> @@ -1790,18 +1777,15 @@ int traceprobe_expand_dentry_args(int argc, const char *argv[], char **buf)
> offsetof(struct file, f_path.dentry),
> equal ? equal + 1 : tmp);
>
> - kfree(tmp);
> + kfree(no_free_ptr(tmp));
I don't get this? You are telling the compiler not to free tmp, because you
decided to free it yourself? Why not just remove the kfree() here altogether?
-- Steve
> if (ret >= bufsize - used)
> - goto nomem;
> + return -ENOMEM;
> argv[i] = tmpbuf + used;
> used += ret + 1;
> }
>
> - *buf = tmpbuf;
> + *buf = no_free_ptr(tmpbuf);
> return 0;
> -nomem:
> - kfree(tmpbuf);
> - return -ENOMEM;
> }
Powered by blists - more mailing lists