From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail-pl1-f176.google.com (mail-pl1-f176.google.com [209.85.214.176]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 314272D641C for ; Sat, 25 Oct 2025 06:24:05 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=209.85.214.176 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1761373447; cv=none; b=TCc2EklA9C+WNIraSD9jqXNsJwiH75Mn7F2Pj6JD2DB8okCqoCYH5HQtEBg8ACUwSw0CrWGIO0m01kRAeEf8OjF1GNpqV7vh8j7FlR9+94h227bqu0UgPPCdf3wqEG1TIAmVOVu5bzhuv11C5nwecERBYvz1yYWjn5ycIz+PnUs= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1761373447; c=relaxed/simple; bh=FMw0+LtxF1XFnxeM6wfrdoWVKBhlpw1rYFoS6IMYePo=; h=Message-ID:Subject:From:To:Cc:Date:In-Reply-To:References: Content-Type:MIME-Version; b=opVdpbL4awnJgHlqxGju82n0vhZxeuY/J7IeOvB0QKxK5WPCACyNahX4iNpYOocYruB+Osv6VANtPTJLsV2Y1rHSpWxwfJT4X9a2ZS0DUuX58lT0pyKFVz+0REZ+VGo+/xm3KgZIfHoMSkpkTX0CfVyDcryvMHUk1l0Sp82Tx/k= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=gmail.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=gmail.com; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com header.i=@gmail.com header.b=XNzcWh2b; arc=none smtp.client-ip=209.85.214.176 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=gmail.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=gmail.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com header.i=@gmail.com header.b="XNzcWh2b" Received: by mail-pl1-f176.google.com with SMTP id d9443c01a7336-290ab379d48so26907355ad.2 for ; Fri, 24 Oct 2025 23:24:05 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20230601; t=1761373445; x=1761978245; darn=vger.kernel.org; h=mime-version:user-agent:content-transfer-encoding:references :in-reply-to:date:cc:to:from:subject:message-id:from:to:cc:subject :date:message-id:reply-to; bh=Uyn+lqnfj+DF2Mnswe7yP+PmxmYmbtnyxPSWDdj2IYQ=; b=XNzcWh2bsHRhXIg5xNeAIKsJqhwchKF8+WPtWD5qzgB821m367N5VOXqOYeVdByUsT f21ry8atQ2Z/BMPzisV1yEM5pma5LujBytxUM1X1Nnvn2NWepzUUnP/X6YCAiZ4viYa7 4ou9prwSwJLccbf3JmbYhKaGuEgiKeW45whAy1pSpbtXjxRnXMnxOzuk/QH7rwypRupH tqp2FvRl7v5fP1cmXi+Zt6EzSsTmSRAzSgkP9HZ7mNjHQ0fm0W8e9dl07UdmM6LF5r19 ld+/wDwtZDehK7hQPL6Ig6kulgA5qKcZUUk2Q8+7Gmzweh0qV+7xgz8/NX//HwwKaHq8 H3Eg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1761373445; x=1761978245; h=mime-version:user-agent:content-transfer-encoding:references :in-reply-to:date:cc:to:from:subject:message-id:x-gm-message-state :from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=Uyn+lqnfj+DF2Mnswe7yP+PmxmYmbtnyxPSWDdj2IYQ=; b=cuNh4ADG1Lc7RmhfJ4XZ9PhCTO05Z361o++nP10fwzVO/uFD1LlFYDqh1hGtRmTa8H rZfnb+5RnWHM5tN29PsXLovCcHa918mCEtQGehy4SR37tI1tw3goiB2FDAmEstYsXAOn VtArCWt6MyHGZSws+1pv7rClaugtxCe8zBnLHmb62fQSlMlLcn9sqJZEBeSPgV+Nkp2e qYRHNDpA6qgC5zU8vlNlMd6n0oDrmjlfPEiBz84fbTJh2jgo/i1cyFdGlBnMjjL1RNh5 DoQC3k7TFrtEpGfu5EVM//sIYjj8ezeNIQCFm8+aZm468z8ttRqFYF6CB6r9UHg7D53X NoPA== X-Forwarded-Encrypted: i=1; AJvYcCW5rqHQG892e4GfjlknXG0NdWG3jDlqHiWKgXw7IxNHl7VQeXdr61BNRyeO32Y/dBOJs5BBlts+6OHKjiA=@vger.kernel.org X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0Yz3lLzsebNBP6ClQ5YjQUrYpYXULsYBtUVqeiuOrJx3dnLaql5M QdP9Tre7VboeM3zauyMw/8c92Mj94p3CFaKVBo2nBDm4NbnWXt+0I5tV X-Gm-Gg: ASbGncslW6gVAahGTePy3naj0KdjAsNjI0fj0NlBtCrCvOukKKH8Ax41llfqMrp3JSe CCWPDHV1UNFRiSBbdqOmSnE6Q9X/A7doOx+GZALU14UoRuic36S0HNWDGeo6dyOjOKwQcV/udsq pxrVW3tVXgcPLH7n862a4O/gqTu1v9Dki5ZhsiMdrfdXleSmXae1/407HMIYd5NEHTiHW00qhV5 yOi5hKsA4R9fYW35rhzMv3G6NVdwNG8a2GNlxkNHugLIIx2gX+lXi3ffyVVv2xMlPbO3iTjaws5 84s1faoz8v7G4/3G1wFWZ4Qvpc30u/L+rRmPUyKNk6ViVd0BO6w/LmbUamJRtlDIR5oGviBw7ZJ YbikmntkUaeTnAVzb848MTEO4uTxExco+S5Xp+JIfY6C5qfacmfddTHpW97CaXpfU7spYclbnc0 92XoWvbNr4oPLmVnDu9IsztyfIV98c/lSyaMCkcFBX0zYUgHtmLw3nxbbF X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IHplQPVfCIQoY8PHDd3B2J4jw0QISC8FZ6gWYBjJGGEKcAtDwmwgPaM4vZb11xkzDseTqP+IA== X-Received: by 2002:a17:903:249:b0:25c:8005:3efb with SMTP id d9443c01a7336-290cba423a6mr366592795ad.54.1761373445251; Fri, 24 Oct 2025 23:24:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ?IPv6:2401:4900:88f6:d7b0:443:a828:b6ba:688d? ([2401:4900:88f6:d7b0:443:a828:b6ba:688d]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id d9443c01a7336-29498e42ea7sm12204175ad.101.2025.10.24.23.23.57 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Fri, 24 Oct 2025 23:24:03 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <81e6af8eea5b0399d1685797d0ea6a6ebc273270.camel@gmail.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] add check for pointers with __free attribute initialized to NULL From: ally heev To: Dan Carpenter Cc: Dwaipayan Ray , Lukas Bulwahn , Joe Perches , Jonathan Corbet , Andy Whitcroft , workflows@vger.kernel.org, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, David Hunter , Shuah Khan , Viresh Kumar , Nishanth Menon , Stephen Boyd , linux-pm , dan.j.williams@intel.com Date: Sat, 25 Oct 2025 11:53:56 +0530 In-Reply-To: References: <20251024-aheev-checkpatch-uninitialized-free-v2-0-16c0900e8130@gmail.com> <20251024-aheev-checkpatch-uninitialized-free-v2-2-16c0900e8130@gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable User-Agent: Evolution 3.56.1-1 Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 On Fri, 2025-10-24 at 21:08 +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote: > On Fri, Oct 24, 2025 at 10:59:16PM +0530, Ally Heev wrote: > > pointers with __free attribute initialized to NULL > > pose potential cleanup issues [1] when a function uses > > interdependent variables with cleanup attributes > >=20 > > Link: https://docs.kernel.org/core-api/cleanup.html [1] > > Link: https://lore.kernel.org/all/68f7b830ec21a_10e910070@dwillia2-mobl= 4.notmuch/ > > Suggested-by: Dan Williams > > Signed-off-by: Ally Heev > > --- >=20 > I don't think this patch is a good idea... There are two issues to > consider 1) The absolute number over warnings. 500+ is too high. > 2) The ratio of bugs to false positives and we don't have any data on > that but I bet it's low. It needs to be at least 5%. For anything > lower than that, you're better off just reviewing code at random > instead of looking through warnings. >=20 > regards, > dan carpenter makes sense General question about the process for my understanding: Is checkpatch run on full tree by CI or someone and results reported regularly ? My understanding was that we would run it only on patches before submitting them Or we just run it on full tree before adding new checks to understand if they are catching real issues