linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] ufs: qcom: Fix confusing cleanup.h syntax

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <4574e679-2f2e-49c8-abb1-3a30f3492efe@oss.qualcomm.com>
Date: Mon, 8 Dec 2025 08:09:15 +0100
From: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@....qualcomm.com>
To: Manivannan Sadhasivam <mani@...nel.org>
Cc: "James E.J. Bottomley" <James.Bottomley@...senpartnership.com>,
        "Martin K. Petersen" <martin.petersen@...cle.com>,
        linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org, linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ufs: qcom: Fix confusing cleanup.h syntax

On 08/12/2025 06:16, Manivannan Sadhasivam wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 08, 2025 at 03:08:08AM +0100, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>> Initializing automatic __free variables to NULL without need (e.g.
>> branches with different allocations), followed by actual allocation is
>> in contrary to explicit coding rules guiding cleanup.h:
>>
>> "Given that the "__free(...) = NULL" pattern for variables defined at
>> the top of the function poses this potential interdependency problem the
>> recommendation is to always define and assign variables in one statement
>> and not group variable definitions at the top of the function when
>> __free() is used."
>>
>> Code does not have a bug, but is less readable and uses discouraged
>> coding practice, so fix that by moving declaration to the place of
>> assignment.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@....qualcomm.com>
> 
> Thanks. On the side note, I would recommend adding this check to checkpatch to
> warn people in the first place.
> 
> Reviewed-by: Manivannan Sadhasivam <mani@...nel.org>


That could be too many false positives. =NULL initialization is correct
and valid in certain cases. Just should not be the default/standard.

Best regards,
Krzysztof