Re: [Intel-wired-lan] [RFC] slab: introduce auto_kfree macro

[Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>]

On Thu, Apr 03, 2025 at 06:35:39PM +0100, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 03, 2025 at 09:59:41AM -0700, Kees Cook wrote:
> > On Wed, Apr 02, 2025 at 12:44:50PM +0200, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> > > Cc Kees and others from his related efforts:
> > > 
> > > https://lore.kernel.org/all/20250321202620.work.175-kees@kernel.org/
> > 
> > I think, unfortunately, the consensus is that "invisible side-effects"
> > are not going to be tolerated. After I finish with kmalloc_obj(), I'd
> > like to take another run at this for basically providing something like:
> > 
> > static inline __must_check
> > void *kfree(void *p) { __kfree(p); return NULL; }
> > 
> > And then switch all:
> > 
> > 	kfree(s->ptr);
> > 
> > to
> > 
> > 	s->ptr = kfree(s->ptr);
> > 
> > Where s->ptr isn't used again.
> 
> Umm ... kfree is now going to be __must_check?  That's a lot of churn.
> 
> I'd just go with making kfree() return NULL and leave off the
> __must_check.  It doesn't need the __kfree() indirection either.
> That lets individual functions opt into the new safety.

Maybe something like

void kfree_and_null(void **ptr)
{
	__kfree(*ptr);
	*ptr = NULL;
}

?

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko