Re: [PATCH v3 6/8] perf timechart: Fix memory leaks during record

[Namhyung Kim <namhyung@kernel.org>]

On Wed, Jun 24, 2026 at 09:06:44PM +0000, sashiko-bot@kernel.org wrote:
> Thank you for your contribution! Sashiko AI review found 1 potential issue(s) to consider:
> - [Medium] Missing explicit POSIX header inclusion for `free()` (musl compatibility guide violation)
> --
> 
> commit e9f4fbcd6ed720db9d6b0daaf8a565c9bbbd415e
> Author: Namhyung Kim <namhyung@kernel.org>
> 
> perf timechart: Fix memory leaks during record
> 
> The command line options can be passed without copy as their lifetime is
> limited within the same function.
> 
> > diff --git a/tools/perf/builtin-timechart.c b/tools/perf/builtin-timechart.c
> > index 27d17268395ed..a73f0ab22fd64 100644
> > --- a/tools/perf/builtin-timechart.c
> > +++ b/tools/perf/builtin-timechart.c
> [ ... ]
> > @@ -1891,7 +1892,11 @@ static int timechart__io_record(int argc, const char **argv, const char *output_
> >  	for (i = 0; i < (unsigned int)argc; i++)
> >  		*p++ = argv[i];
> >  
> > -	return cmd_record(rec_argc, rec_argv);
> > +	ret = cmd_record(rec_argc, rec_argv);
> > +
> > +	free(rec_argv);
> > +	free(filter);
> 
> [Severity: Medium]
> Does this code need an explicit inclusion of <stdlib.h> at the top of the
> file?
> 
> The perf subsystem musl compatibility guidelines mention that files using
> POSIX libc functions must explicitly include the relevant headers, as musl
> strictly separates declarations unlike glibc. Could these new free() calls
> cause a build failure on systems using musl libc if the header is omitted?

While it may be a valid concern, the free() function is already used in
many places of the file.  And I didn't get any reports about musl on
this yet.  So I think it's good to go.

Thanks,
Namhyung