On Tue, Jun 04, 2024 at 05:50:23PM +0100, Jonathan Cameron wrote:
> > > > static int fwctl_fops_open(struct inode *inode, struct file *filp)
> > > > {
> > > > struct fwctl_device *fwctl =
> > > > container_of(inode->i_cdev, struct fwctl_device, cdev);
> > > > + struct fwctl_uctx *uctx __free(kfree) = NULL;
> > > > + int ret;
> > > > +
> > > > + guard(rwsem_read)(&fwctl->registration_lock);
> > > > + if (!fwctl->ops)
> > > > + return -ENODEV;
> > > > +
> > > > + uctx = kzalloc(fwctl->ops->uctx_size, GFP_KERNEL | GFP_KERNEL_ACCOUNT);
> > > > + if (!uctx)
> > > > + return -ENOMEM;
> > > > +
> > > > + uctx->fwctl = fwctl;
> > > > + ret = fwctl->ops->open_uctx(uctx);
> > > > + if (ret)
> > > > + return ret;
> > >
> > > When something is wrong, uctx is freed in "fwctl->ops->open_uctx(uctx);"?
> > >
> > > If not, the allocated memory uctx leaks here.
> >
> > See how uctx is declared:
> > struct fwctl_uctx *uctx __free(kfree) = NULL;
> >
> > It will be released automatically.
> > See include/linux/cleanup.h for more details.
>
> I'm lazy so not finding the discussion now, but Linus has been pretty clear
> that he doesn't like this pattern because of possibility of additional cleanup
> magic getting introduced and then the cleanup happening in an order that
> causes problems.
I saw that discussion, but I thought it was talking about the macro
behavior - ie guard() creates a variable hidden in the macro.
The point about order is interesting though - notice the above will
free the uctx after unlocking (which is the slightly more preferred
order here), but it is easy to imagine cases where that order would be
wrong.
> Preferred option is drag the declaration to where is initialized so break
> with our tradition of declarations all at the top
>
> struct fwctl_uctx *uctx __free(kfree) =
> kzalloc(...);
I don't recall that dramatic conclusion in the discussion, but it does
make alot of sense to me.
Thanks,
Jason
