[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <221c2b9b-4809-48d8-af7d-f290d1c2a7fa@web.de>
Date: Wed, 5 Nov 2025 10:18:12 +0100
From: Markus Elfring <Markus.Elfring@....de>
To: Ally Heev <allyheev@...il.com>, Geert Uytterhoeven
<geert@...ux-m68k.org>, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
workflows@...r.kernel.org, Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, linux-pm@...r.kernel.org,
Andy Whitcroft <apw@...onical.com>, Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...aro.org>,
Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
David Hunter <david.hunter.linux@...il.com>,
Dwaipayan Ray <dwaipayanray1@...il.com>,
Lukas Bulwahn <lukas.bulwahn@...il.com>, Nishanth Menon <nm@...com>,
Shuah Khan <skhan@...uxfoundation.org>, Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...nel.org>,
Viresh Kumar <vireshk@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RESEND v3] checkpatch: add uninitialized pointer with
__free attribute check
…
> > +++ 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?
* Do corresponding source code analysis requirements indicate a need
to perform data processing with other programming interfaces than regular expressions?
* How do you think about to mention the possibility once more that scopes
can be reduced for affected local variables?
https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v6.18-rc4/source/include/linux/cleanup.h#L142-L146
Regards,
Markus
Powered by blists - more mailing lists