[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <5bcc00da02d4f5e44a8fabcde406402ca31f0491.camel@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 05 Nov 2025 11:57:23 +0530
From: ally heev <allyheev@...il.com>
To: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>
Cc: Dwaipayan Ray <dwaipayanray1@...il.com>, Lukas Bulwahn
<lukas.bulwahn@...il.com>, Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>, Jonathan Corbet
<corbet@....net>, Andy Whitcroft <apw@...onical.com>,
workflows@...r.kernel.org, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...aro.org>,
David Hunter <david.hunter.linux@...il.com>, Shuah Khan
<skhan@...uxfoundation.org>, Viresh Kumar <vireshk@...nel.org>, Nishanth
Menon <nm@...com>, Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...nel.org>, linux-pm
<linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>, dan.j.williams@...el.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH RESEND v3] checkpatch: add uninitialized pointer with
__free attribute check
On Tue, 2025-11-04 at 14:28 +0100, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> Hi Ally,
>
> On Tue, 4 Nov 2025 at 10:58, Ally Heev <allyheev@...il.com> wrote:
> > uninitialized pointers with __free attribute can cause undefined
> > behaviour as the memory allocated to the pointer is freed
> > automatically when the pointer goes out of scope.
> > add check in checkpatch to detect such issues
> >
> > Suggested-by: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...aro.org>
> > Link: https://lore.kernel.org/all/8a4c0b43-cf63-400d-b33d-d9c447b7e0b9@suswa.mountain/
> > Acked-by: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Ally Heev <allyheev@...il.com>
>
> Thanks for your patch!
>
> > --- a/Documentation/dev-tools/checkpatch.rst
> > +++ b/Documentation/dev-tools/checkpatch.rst
> > @@ -1009,6 +1009,11 @@ Functions and Variables
> >
> > return bar;
> >
> > + **UNINITIALIZED_PTR_WITH_FREE**
> > + Pointers with __free attribute should be initialized. Not doing so
> > + may lead to undefined behavior as the memory allocated (garbage,
> > + in case not initialized) to the pointer is freed automatically
> > + when the pointer goes out of scope.
>
> I think this is misleading, and can be improved: if the pointer is
> uninitialized, no memory was allocated?
yeah right. Will update in next version
Regards,
Ally
Powered by blists - more mailing lists