[PATCH 1/3] tee: qcomtee: call: Fix confusing cleanup.h syntax

[PATCH 1/3] tee: qcomtee: call: Fix confusing cleanup.h syntax

[Krzysztof Kozlowski]

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@oss.qualcomm.com>
---
 drivers/tee/qcomtee/call.c | 17 ++++++++---------
 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/tee/qcomtee/call.c b/drivers/tee/qcomtee/call.c
index 65f9140d4e1f..8f8830f0df26 100644
--- a/drivers/tee/qcomtee/call.c
+++ b/drivers/tee/qcomtee/call.c
@@ -395,9 +395,7 @@ static int qcomtee_object_invoke(struct tee_context *ctx,
 				 struct tee_ioctl_object_invoke_arg *arg,
 				 struct tee_param *params)
 {
-	struct qcomtee_object_invoke_ctx *oic __free(kfree) = NULL;
 	struct qcomtee_context_data *ctxdata = ctx->data;
-	struct qcomtee_arg *u __free(kfree) = NULL;
 	struct qcomtee_object *object;
 	int i, ret, result;
 
@@ -412,12 +410,14 @@ static int qcomtee_object_invoke(struct tee_context *ctx,
 	}
 
 	/* Otherwise, invoke a QTEE object: */
-	oic = qcomtee_object_invoke_ctx_alloc(ctx);
+	struct qcomtee_object_invoke_ctx *oic __free(kfree) =
+		qcomtee_object_invoke_ctx_alloc(ctx);
 	if (!oic)
 		return -ENOMEM;
 
 	/* +1 for ending QCOMTEE_ARG_TYPE_INV. */
-	u = kcalloc(arg->num_params + 1, sizeof(*u), GFP_KERNEL);
+	struct qcomtee_arg *u __free(kfree) = kcalloc(arg->num_params + 1, sizeof(*u),
+						      GFP_KERNEL);
 	if (!u)
 		return -ENOMEM;
 
@@ -562,9 +562,8 @@ static int qcomtee_supp_send(struct tee_context *ctx, u32 errno, u32 num_params,
 
 static int qcomtee_open(struct tee_context *ctx)
 {
-	struct qcomtee_context_data *ctxdata __free(kfree) = NULL;
-
-	ctxdata = kzalloc(sizeof(*ctxdata), GFP_KERNEL);
+	struct qcomtee_context_data *ctxdata __free(kfree) = kzalloc(sizeof(*ctxdata),
+								     GFP_KERNEL);
 	if (!ctxdata)
 		return -ENOMEM;
 
@@ -645,12 +644,12 @@ static void qcomtee_get_version(struct tee_device *teedev,
 static void qcomtee_get_qtee_feature_list(struct tee_context *ctx, u32 id,
 					  u32 *version)
 {
-	struct qcomtee_object_invoke_ctx *oic __free(kfree) = NULL;
 	struct qcomtee_object *client_env, *service;
 	struct qcomtee_arg u[3] = { 0 };
 	int result;
 
-	oic = qcomtee_object_invoke_ctx_alloc(ctx);
+	struct qcomtee_object_invoke_ctx *oic __free(kfree) =
+		qcomtee_object_invoke_ctx_alloc(ctx);
 	if (!oic)
 		return;
 
-- 
2.51.0

[PATCH 2/3] tee: qcomtee: mem: Fix confusing cleanup.h syntax

[Krzysztof Kozlowski]

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@oss.qualcomm.com>
---
 drivers/tee/qcomtee/mem_obj.c | 4 ++--
 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/tee/qcomtee/mem_obj.c b/drivers/tee/qcomtee/mem_obj.c
index 228a3e30a31b..a16f8fc39b8d 100644
--- a/drivers/tee/qcomtee/mem_obj.c
+++ b/drivers/tee/qcomtee/mem_obj.c
@@ -88,11 +88,11 @@ int qcomtee_memobj_param_to_object(struct qcomtee_object **object,
 				   struct tee_param *param,
 				   struct tee_context *ctx)
 {
-	struct qcomtee_mem_object *mem_object __free(kfree) = NULL;
 	struct tee_shm *shm;
 	int err;
 
-	mem_object = kzalloc(sizeof(*mem_object), GFP_KERNEL);
+	struct qcomtee_mem_object *mem_object __free(kfree) = kzalloc(sizeof(*mem_object),
+								      GFP_KERNEL);
 	if (!mem_object)
 		return -ENOMEM;
 
-- 
2.51.0

Re: [PATCH 2/3] tee: qcomtee: mem: Fix confusing cleanup.h syntax

[Amirreza Zarrabi]

On 12/8/2025 1:08 PM, 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@oss.qualcomm.com>
> ---
>  drivers/tee/qcomtee/mem_obj.c | 4 ++--
>  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/tee/qcomtee/mem_obj.c b/drivers/tee/qcomtee/mem_obj.c
> index 228a3e30a31b..a16f8fc39b8d 100644
> --- a/drivers/tee/qcomtee/mem_obj.c
> +++ b/drivers/tee/qcomtee/mem_obj.c
> @@ -88,11 +88,11 @@ int qcomtee_memobj_param_to_object(struct qcomtee_object **object,
>  				   struct tee_param *param,
>  				   struct tee_context *ctx)
>  {
> -	struct qcomtee_mem_object *mem_object __free(kfree) = NULL;
>  	struct tee_shm *shm;
>  	int err;
>  
> -	mem_object = kzalloc(sizeof(*mem_object), GFP_KERNEL);
> +	struct qcomtee_mem_object *mem_object __free(kfree) = kzalloc(sizeof(*mem_object),
> +								      GFP_KERNEL);
>  	if (!mem_object)
>  		return -ENOMEM;
>  

Reviewed-by: Amirreza Zarrabi <amirreza.zarrabi@oss.qualcomm.com>

- Amir

[PATCH 3/3] tee: qcomtee: user: Fix confusing cleanup.h syntax

[Krzysztof Kozlowski]

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@oss.qualcomm.com>
---
 drivers/tee/qcomtee/user_obj.c | 8 ++++----
 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/tee/qcomtee/user_obj.c b/drivers/tee/qcomtee/user_obj.c
index 0139905f2684..6aa3aefd67f0 100644
--- a/drivers/tee/qcomtee/user_obj.c
+++ b/drivers/tee/qcomtee/user_obj.c
@@ -228,10 +228,10 @@ static int qcomtee_user_object_dispatch(struct qcomtee_object_invoke_ctx *oic,
 {
 	struct qcomtee_user_object *uo = to_qcomtee_user_object(object);
 	struct qcomtee_context_data *ctxdata = uo->ctx->data;
-	struct qcomtee_ureq *ureq __free(kfree) = NULL;
 	int errno;
 
-	ureq = kzalloc(sizeof(*ureq), GFP_KERNEL);
+	struct qcomtee_ureq *ureq __free(kfree) = kzalloc(sizeof(*ureq),
+							  GFP_KERNEL);
 	if (!ureq)
 		return -ENOMEM;
 
@@ -367,10 +367,10 @@ int qcomtee_user_param_to_object(struct qcomtee_object **object,
 				 struct tee_param *param,
 				 struct tee_context *ctx)
 {
-	struct qcomtee_user_object *user_object __free(kfree) = NULL;
 	int err;
 
-	user_object = kzalloc(sizeof(*user_object), GFP_KERNEL);
+	struct qcomtee_user_object *user_object __free(kfree) =
+		kzalloc(sizeof(*user_object), GFP_KERNEL);
 	if (!user_object)
 		return -ENOMEM;
 
-- 
2.51.0

Re: [PATCH 3/3] tee: qcomtee: user: Fix confusing cleanup.h syntax

[Amirreza Zarrabi]

On 12/8/2025 1:08 PM, 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@oss.qualcomm.com>
> ---
>  drivers/tee/qcomtee/user_obj.c | 8 ++++----
>  1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/tee/qcomtee/user_obj.c b/drivers/tee/qcomtee/user_obj.c
> index 0139905f2684..6aa3aefd67f0 100644
> --- a/drivers/tee/qcomtee/user_obj.c
> +++ b/drivers/tee/qcomtee/user_obj.c
> @@ -228,10 +228,10 @@ static int qcomtee_user_object_dispatch(struct qcomtee_object_invoke_ctx *oic,
>  {
>  	struct qcomtee_user_object *uo = to_qcomtee_user_object(object);
>  	struct qcomtee_context_data *ctxdata = uo->ctx->data;
> -	struct qcomtee_ureq *ureq __free(kfree) = NULL;
>  	int errno;
>  
> -	ureq = kzalloc(sizeof(*ureq), GFP_KERNEL);
> +	struct qcomtee_ureq *ureq __free(kfree) = kzalloc(sizeof(*ureq),
> +							  GFP_KERNEL);
>  	if (!ureq)
>  		return -ENOMEM;
>  
> @@ -367,10 +367,10 @@ int qcomtee_user_param_to_object(struct qcomtee_object **object,
>  				 struct tee_param *param,
>  				 struct tee_context *ctx)
>  {
> -	struct qcomtee_user_object *user_object __free(kfree) = NULL;
>  	int err;
>  
> -	user_object = kzalloc(sizeof(*user_object), GFP_KERNEL);
> +	struct qcomtee_user_object *user_object __free(kfree) =
> +		kzalloc(sizeof(*user_object), GFP_KERNEL);
>  	if (!user_object)
>  		return -ENOMEM;
>  

Reviewed-by: Amirreza Zarrabi <amirreza.zarrabi@oss.qualcomm.com>

- Amir

Re: [PATCH 3/3] tee: qcomtee: user: Fix confusing cleanup.h syntax

[Jens Wiklander]

On Sun, Jan 4, 2026 at 11:50 PM Amirreza Zarrabi
<amirreza.zarrabi@oss.qualcomm.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> On 12/8/2025 1:08 PM, 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@oss.qualcomm.com>
> > ---
> >  drivers/tee/qcomtee/user_obj.c | 8 ++++----
> >  1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/tee/qcomtee/user_obj.c b/drivers/tee/qcomtee/user_obj.c
> > index 0139905f2684..6aa3aefd67f0 100644
> > --- a/drivers/tee/qcomtee/user_obj.c
> > +++ b/drivers/tee/qcomtee/user_obj.c
> > @@ -228,10 +228,10 @@ static int qcomtee_user_object_dispatch(struct qcomtee_object_invoke_ctx *oic,
> >  {
> >       struct qcomtee_user_object *uo = to_qcomtee_user_object(object);
> >       struct qcomtee_context_data *ctxdata = uo->ctx->data;
> > -     struct qcomtee_ureq *ureq __free(kfree) = NULL;
> >       int errno;
> >
> > -     ureq = kzalloc(sizeof(*ureq), GFP_KERNEL);
> > +     struct qcomtee_ureq *ureq __free(kfree) = kzalloc(sizeof(*ureq),
> > +                                                       GFP_KERNEL);
> >       if (!ureq)
> >               return -ENOMEM;
> >
> > @@ -367,10 +367,10 @@ int qcomtee_user_param_to_object(struct qcomtee_object **object,
> >                                struct tee_param *param,
> >                                struct tee_context *ctx)
> >  {
> > -     struct qcomtee_user_object *user_object __free(kfree) = NULL;
> >       int err;
> >
> > -     user_object = kzalloc(sizeof(*user_object), GFP_KERNEL);
> > +     struct qcomtee_user_object *user_object __free(kfree) =
> > +             kzalloc(sizeof(*user_object), GFP_KERNEL);
> >       if (!user_object)
> >               return -ENOMEM;
> >
>
> Reviewed-by: Amirreza Zarrabi <amirreza.zarrabi@oss.qualcomm.com>

I'm picking up this.

Thanks,
Jens

Re: [PATCH 1/3] tee: qcomtee: call: Fix confusing cleanup.h syntax

[Sumit Garg]

On Mon, Dec 08, 2025 at 03:08:45AM +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.

Okay I see but..

> 
> Signed-off-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@oss.qualcomm.com>
> ---
>  drivers/tee/qcomtee/call.c | 17 ++++++++---------
>  1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/tee/qcomtee/call.c b/drivers/tee/qcomtee/call.c
> index 65f9140d4e1f..8f8830f0df26 100644
> --- a/drivers/tee/qcomtee/call.c
> +++ b/drivers/tee/qcomtee/call.c
> @@ -395,9 +395,7 @@ static int qcomtee_object_invoke(struct tee_context *ctx,
>  				 struct tee_ioctl_object_invoke_arg *arg,
>  				 struct tee_param *params)
>  {
> -	struct qcomtee_object_invoke_ctx *oic __free(kfree) = NULL;
>  	struct qcomtee_context_data *ctxdata = ctx->data;
> -	struct qcomtee_arg *u __free(kfree) = NULL;
>  	struct qcomtee_object *object;
>  	int i, ret, result;
>  
> @@ -412,12 +410,14 @@ static int qcomtee_object_invoke(struct tee_context *ctx,
>  	}
>  
>  	/* Otherwise, invoke a QTEE object: */
> -	oic = qcomtee_object_invoke_ctx_alloc(ctx);
> +	struct qcomtee_object_invoke_ctx *oic __free(kfree) =
> +		qcomtee_object_invoke_ctx_alloc(ctx);
>  	if (!oic)
>  		return -ENOMEM;
>  
>  	/* +1 for ending QCOMTEE_ARG_TYPE_INV. */
> -	u = kcalloc(arg->num_params + 1, sizeof(*u), GFP_KERNEL);
> +	struct qcomtee_arg *u __free(kfree) = kcalloc(arg->num_params + 1, sizeof(*u),
> +						      GFP_KERNEL);

..this makes the code less readable with variable declarations floating
within the function. I would rather favor to not use the cleanup.h construct
but use explicit kfree() invocations instead like it's done in all other
allocations in the TEE subsystem.

-Sumit

>  	if (!u)
>  		return -ENOMEM;
>  
> @@ -562,9 +562,8 @@ static int qcomtee_supp_send(struct tee_context *ctx, u32 errno, u32 num_params,
>  
>  static int qcomtee_open(struct tee_context *ctx)
>  {
> -	struct qcomtee_context_data *ctxdata __free(kfree) = NULL;
> -
> -	ctxdata = kzalloc(sizeof(*ctxdata), GFP_KERNEL);
> +	struct qcomtee_context_data *ctxdata __free(kfree) = kzalloc(sizeof(*ctxdata),
> +								     GFP_KERNEL);
>  	if (!ctxdata)
>  		return -ENOMEM;
>  
> @@ -645,12 +644,12 @@ static void qcomtee_get_version(struct tee_device *teedev,
>  static void qcomtee_get_qtee_feature_list(struct tee_context *ctx, u32 id,
>  					  u32 *version)
>  {
> -	struct qcomtee_object_invoke_ctx *oic __free(kfree) = NULL;
>  	struct qcomtee_object *client_env, *service;
>  	struct qcomtee_arg u[3] = { 0 };
>  	int result;
>  
> -	oic = qcomtee_object_invoke_ctx_alloc(ctx);
> +	struct qcomtee_object_invoke_ctx *oic __free(kfree) =
> +		qcomtee_object_invoke_ctx_alloc(ctx);
>  	if (!oic)
>  		return;
>  
> -- 
> 2.51.0
> 

Re: [PATCH 1/3] tee: qcomtee: call: Fix confusing cleanup.h syntax

[Krzysztof Kozlowski]

On 12/12/2025 01:55, Sumit Garg wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 08, 2025 at 03:08:45AM +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.
> 
> Okay I see but..
> 
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@oss.qualcomm.com>
>> ---
>>  drivers/tee/qcomtee/call.c | 17 ++++++++---------
>>  1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/tee/qcomtee/call.c b/drivers/tee/qcomtee/call.c
>> index 65f9140d4e1f..8f8830f0df26 100644
>> --- a/drivers/tee/qcomtee/call.c
>> +++ b/drivers/tee/qcomtee/call.c
>> @@ -395,9 +395,7 @@ static int qcomtee_object_invoke(struct tee_context *ctx,
>>  				 struct tee_ioctl_object_invoke_arg *arg,
>>  				 struct tee_param *params)
>>  {
>> -	struct qcomtee_object_invoke_ctx *oic __free(kfree) = NULL;
>>  	struct qcomtee_context_data *ctxdata = ctx->data;
>> -	struct qcomtee_arg *u __free(kfree) = NULL;
>>  	struct qcomtee_object *object;
>>  	int i, ret, result;
>>  
>> @@ -412,12 +410,14 @@ static int qcomtee_object_invoke(struct tee_context *ctx,
>>  	}
>>  
>>  	/* Otherwise, invoke a QTEE object: */
>> -	oic = qcomtee_object_invoke_ctx_alloc(ctx);
>> +	struct qcomtee_object_invoke_ctx *oic __free(kfree) =
>> +		qcomtee_object_invoke_ctx_alloc(ctx);
>>  	if (!oic)
>>  		return -ENOMEM;
>>  
>>  	/* +1 for ending QCOMTEE_ARG_TYPE_INV. */
>> -	u = kcalloc(arg->num_params + 1, sizeof(*u), GFP_KERNEL);
>> +	struct qcomtee_arg *u __free(kfree) = kcalloc(arg->num_params + 1, sizeof(*u),
>> +						      GFP_KERNEL);
> 
> ..this makes the code less readable with variable declarations floating

Which is intentional.

> within the function. I would rather favor to not use the cleanup.h construct
> but use explicit kfree() invocations instead like it's done in all other
> allocations in the TEE subsystem.

Sure, fair. I just don't get why introducing cleanup.h without actually
accepting its explicitly documented style...


Best regards,
Krzysztof

Re: [PATCH 1/3] tee: qcomtee: call: Fix confusing cleanup.h syntax

[Sumit Garg]

On Fri, Dec 12, 2025 at 02:07:40AM +0100, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On 12/12/2025 01:55, Sumit Garg wrote:
> > On Mon, Dec 08, 2025 at 03:08:45AM +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.
> > 
> > Okay I see but..
> > 
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@oss.qualcomm.com>
> >> ---
> >>  drivers/tee/qcomtee/call.c | 17 ++++++++---------
> >>  1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/drivers/tee/qcomtee/call.c b/drivers/tee/qcomtee/call.c
> >> index 65f9140d4e1f..8f8830f0df26 100644
> >> --- a/drivers/tee/qcomtee/call.c
> >> +++ b/drivers/tee/qcomtee/call.c
> >> @@ -395,9 +395,7 @@ static int qcomtee_object_invoke(struct tee_context *ctx,
> >>  				 struct tee_ioctl_object_invoke_arg *arg,
> >>  				 struct tee_param *params)
> >>  {
> >> -	struct qcomtee_object_invoke_ctx *oic __free(kfree) = NULL;
> >>  	struct qcomtee_context_data *ctxdata = ctx->data;
> >> -	struct qcomtee_arg *u __free(kfree) = NULL;
> >>  	struct qcomtee_object *object;
> >>  	int i, ret, result;
> >>  
> >> @@ -412,12 +410,14 @@ static int qcomtee_object_invoke(struct tee_context *ctx,
> >>  	}
> >>  
> >>  	/* Otherwise, invoke a QTEE object: */
> >> -	oic = qcomtee_object_invoke_ctx_alloc(ctx);
> >> +	struct qcomtee_object_invoke_ctx *oic __free(kfree) =
> >> +		qcomtee_object_invoke_ctx_alloc(ctx);
> >>  	if (!oic)
> >>  		return -ENOMEM;
> >>  
> >>  	/* +1 for ending QCOMTEE_ARG_TYPE_INV. */
> >> -	u = kcalloc(arg->num_params + 1, sizeof(*u), GFP_KERNEL);
> >> +	struct qcomtee_arg *u __free(kfree) = kcalloc(arg->num_params + 1, sizeof(*u),
> >> +						      GFP_KERNEL);
> > 
> > ..this makes the code less readable with variable declarations floating
> 
> Which is intentional.
> 
> > within the function. I would rather favor to not use the cleanup.h construct
> > but use explicit kfree() invocations instead like it's done in all other
> > allocations in the TEE subsystem.
> 
> Sure, fair. I just don't get why introducing cleanup.h without actually
> accepting its explicitly documented style...
> 

TBH, it is likely overlooked during review of the QTEE driver. Having a
builtin warning for the undesired syntax would help the reviewers here.

-Sumit

Re: [PATCH 1/3] tee: qcomtee: call: Fix confusing cleanup.h syntax

[Amirreza Zarrabi]

Hi,

On 12/12/2025 12:39 PM, Sumit Garg wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 12, 2025 at 02:07:40AM +0100, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>> On 12/12/2025 01:55, Sumit Garg wrote:
>>> On Mon, Dec 08, 2025 at 03:08:45AM +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.
>>>
>>> Okay I see but..
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@oss.qualcomm.com>
>>>> ---
>>>>  drivers/tee/qcomtee/call.c | 17 ++++++++---------
>>>>  1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/drivers/tee/qcomtee/call.c b/drivers/tee/qcomtee/call.c
>>>> index 65f9140d4e1f..8f8830f0df26 100644
>>>> --- a/drivers/tee/qcomtee/call.c
>>>> +++ b/drivers/tee/qcomtee/call.c
>>>> @@ -395,9 +395,7 @@ static int qcomtee_object_invoke(struct tee_context *ctx,
>>>>  				 struct tee_ioctl_object_invoke_arg *arg,
>>>>  				 struct tee_param *params)
>>>>  {
>>>> -	struct qcomtee_object_invoke_ctx *oic __free(kfree) = NULL;
>>>>  	struct qcomtee_context_data *ctxdata = ctx->data;
>>>> -	struct qcomtee_arg *u __free(kfree) = NULL;
>>>>  	struct qcomtee_object *object;
>>>>  	int i, ret, result;
>>>>  
>>>> @@ -412,12 +410,14 @@ static int qcomtee_object_invoke(struct tee_context *ctx,
>>>>  	}
>>>>  
>>>>  	/* Otherwise, invoke a QTEE object: */
>>>> -	oic = qcomtee_object_invoke_ctx_alloc(ctx);
>>>> +	struct qcomtee_object_invoke_ctx *oic __free(kfree) =
>>>> +		qcomtee_object_invoke_ctx_alloc(ctx);
>>>>  	if (!oic)
>>>>  		return -ENOMEM;
>>>>  
>>>>  	/* +1 for ending QCOMTEE_ARG_TYPE_INV. */
>>>> -	u = kcalloc(arg->num_params + 1, sizeof(*u), GFP_KERNEL);
>>>> +	struct qcomtee_arg *u __free(kfree) = kcalloc(arg->num_params + 1, sizeof(*u),
>>>> +						      GFP_KERNEL);
>>>
>>> ..this makes the code less readable with variable declarations floating
>>
>> Which is intentional.
>>
>>> within the function. I would rather favor to not use the cleanup.h construct
>>> but use explicit kfree() invocations instead like it's done in all other
>>> allocations in the TEE subsystem.
>>
>> Sure, fair. I just don't get why introducing cleanup.h without actually
>> accepting its explicitly documented style...
>>
> 
> TBH, it is likely overlooked during review of the QTEE driver. Having a
> builtin warning for the undesired syntax would help the reviewers here.
> 
> -Sumit

While the style may seem unusual -- as stated in cleanup.h, using cleanup helpers
makes the code more readable overall compared to relying on multiple goto statements.
Also, it’s not just about the "__free(...) = NULL" use cases -- there are locks
involved as well. Switching to direct free() would require reverting those locks,
since mixing cleanup helpers with manual cleanup is not acceptable.

If this behavior is explicitly documented in cleanup.h, there is no reason not
to use it as intended. I also support Krzysztof’s suggestion.

Best regards,
Amir

Re: [PATCH 1/3] tee: qcomtee: call: Fix confusing cleanup.h syntax

[Jens Wiklander]

Hi,

On Mon, Dec 15, 2025 at 9:30 PM Amirreza Zarrabi
<amirreza.zarrabi@oss.qualcomm.com> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> On 12/12/2025 12:39 PM, Sumit Garg wrote:
> > On Fri, Dec 12, 2025 at 02:07:40AM +0100, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> >> On 12/12/2025 01:55, Sumit Garg wrote:
> >>> On Mon, Dec 08, 2025 at 03:08:45AM +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.
> >>>
> >>> Okay I see but..
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Signed-off-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@oss.qualcomm.com>
> >>>> ---
> >>>>  drivers/tee/qcomtee/call.c | 17 ++++++++---------
> >>>>  1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
> >>>>
> >>>> diff --git a/drivers/tee/qcomtee/call.c b/drivers/tee/qcomtee/call.c
> >>>> index 65f9140d4e1f..8f8830f0df26 100644
> >>>> --- a/drivers/tee/qcomtee/call.c
> >>>> +++ b/drivers/tee/qcomtee/call.c
> >>>> @@ -395,9 +395,7 @@ static int qcomtee_object_invoke(struct tee_context *ctx,
> >>>>                             struct tee_ioctl_object_invoke_arg *arg,
> >>>>                             struct tee_param *params)
> >>>>  {
> >>>> -  struct qcomtee_object_invoke_ctx *oic __free(kfree) = NULL;
> >>>>    struct qcomtee_context_data *ctxdata = ctx->data;
> >>>> -  struct qcomtee_arg *u __free(kfree) = NULL;
> >>>>    struct qcomtee_object *object;
> >>>>    int i, ret, result;
> >>>>
> >>>> @@ -412,12 +410,14 @@ static int qcomtee_object_invoke(struct tee_context *ctx,
> >>>>    }
> >>>>
> >>>>    /* Otherwise, invoke a QTEE object: */
> >>>> -  oic = qcomtee_object_invoke_ctx_alloc(ctx);
> >>>> +  struct qcomtee_object_invoke_ctx *oic __free(kfree) =
> >>>> +          qcomtee_object_invoke_ctx_alloc(ctx);
> >>>>    if (!oic)
> >>>>            return -ENOMEM;
> >>>>
> >>>>    /* +1 for ending QCOMTEE_ARG_TYPE_INV. */
> >>>> -  u = kcalloc(arg->num_params + 1, sizeof(*u), GFP_KERNEL);
> >>>> +  struct qcomtee_arg *u __free(kfree) = kcalloc(arg->num_params + 1, sizeof(*u),
> >>>> +                                                GFP_KERNEL);
> >>>
> >>> ..this makes the code less readable with variable declarations floating
> >>
> >> Which is intentional.
> >>
> >>> within the function. I would rather favor to not use the cleanup.h construct
> >>> but use explicit kfree() invocations instead like it's done in all other
> >>> allocations in the TEE subsystem.
> >>
> >> Sure, fair. I just don't get why introducing cleanup.h without actually
> >> accepting its explicitly documented style...
> >>
> >
> > TBH, it is likely overlooked during review of the QTEE driver. Having a
> > builtin warning for the undesired syntax would help the reviewers here.
> >
> > -Sumit
>
> While the style may seem unusual -- as stated in cleanup.h, using cleanup helpers
> makes the code more readable overall compared to relying on multiple goto statements.
> Also, it’s not just about the "__free(...) = NULL" use cases -- there are locks
> involved as well. Switching to direct free() would require reverting those locks,
> since mixing cleanup helpers with manual cleanup is not acceptable.
>
> If this behavior is explicitly documented in cleanup.h, there is no reason not
> to use it as intended. I also support Krzysztof’s suggestion.

It looks quite ugly, and it can't be mixed with the usual goto
cleanups (I suspect some care is needed with switch cases too), so we
must be careful where we use it. It's not obvious that this pattern
should be used in every function. However, where it's used, it should,
of course, be used correctly.

Thanks for the fixes, Krzysztof.

Amir, if you're happy with the fixes, can you give your R-B for each of them?

Thanks,
Jens

Re: [PATCH 1/3] tee: qcomtee: call: Fix confusing cleanup.h syntax

[Amirreza Zarrabi]

Hi,

On 12/16/2025 6:33 PM, Jens Wiklander wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> On Mon, Dec 15, 2025 at 9:30 PM Amirreza Zarrabi
> <amirreza.zarrabi@oss.qualcomm.com> wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> On 12/12/2025 12:39 PM, Sumit Garg wrote:
>>> On Fri, Dec 12, 2025 at 02:07:40AM +0100, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>>>> On 12/12/2025 01:55, Sumit Garg wrote:
>>>>> On Mon, Dec 08, 2025 at 03:08:45AM +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.
>>>>>
>>>>> Okay I see but..
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@oss.qualcomm.com>
>>>>>> ---
>>>>>>  drivers/tee/qcomtee/call.c | 17 ++++++++---------
>>>>>>  1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> diff --git a/drivers/tee/qcomtee/call.c b/drivers/tee/qcomtee/call.c
>>>>>> index 65f9140d4e1f..8f8830f0df26 100644
>>>>>> --- a/drivers/tee/qcomtee/call.c
>>>>>> +++ b/drivers/tee/qcomtee/call.c
>>>>>> @@ -395,9 +395,7 @@ static int qcomtee_object_invoke(struct tee_context *ctx,
>>>>>>                             struct tee_ioctl_object_invoke_arg *arg,
>>>>>>                             struct tee_param *params)
>>>>>>  {
>>>>>> -  struct qcomtee_object_invoke_ctx *oic __free(kfree) = NULL;
>>>>>>    struct qcomtee_context_data *ctxdata = ctx->data;
>>>>>> -  struct qcomtee_arg *u __free(kfree) = NULL;
>>>>>>    struct qcomtee_object *object;
>>>>>>    int i, ret, result;
>>>>>>
>>>>>> @@ -412,12 +410,14 @@ static int qcomtee_object_invoke(struct tee_context *ctx,
>>>>>>    }
>>>>>>
>>>>>>    /* Otherwise, invoke a QTEE object: */
>>>>>> -  oic = qcomtee_object_invoke_ctx_alloc(ctx);
>>>>>> +  struct qcomtee_object_invoke_ctx *oic __free(kfree) =
>>>>>> +          qcomtee_object_invoke_ctx_alloc(ctx);
>>>>>>    if (!oic)
>>>>>>            return -ENOMEM;
>>>>>>
>>>>>>    /* +1 for ending QCOMTEE_ARG_TYPE_INV. */
>>>>>> -  u = kcalloc(arg->num_params + 1, sizeof(*u), GFP_KERNEL);
>>>>>> +  struct qcomtee_arg *u __free(kfree) = kcalloc(arg->num_params + 1, sizeof(*u),
>>>>>> +                                                GFP_KERNEL);
>>>>>
>>>>> ..this makes the code less readable with variable declarations floating
>>>>
>>>> Which is intentional.
>>>>
>>>>> within the function. I would rather favor to not use the cleanup.h construct
>>>>> but use explicit kfree() invocations instead like it's done in all other
>>>>> allocations in the TEE subsystem.
>>>>
>>>> Sure, fair. I just don't get why introducing cleanup.h without actually
>>>> accepting its explicitly documented style...
>>>>
>>>
>>> TBH, it is likely overlooked during review of the QTEE driver. Having a
>>> builtin warning for the undesired syntax would help the reviewers here.
>>>
>>> -Sumit
>>
>> While the style may seem unusual -- as stated in cleanup.h, using cleanup helpers
>> makes the code more readable overall compared to relying on multiple goto statements.
>> Also, it’s not just about the "__free(...) = NULL" use cases -- there are locks
>> involved as well. Switching to direct free() would require reverting those locks,
>> since mixing cleanup helpers with manual cleanup is not acceptable.
>>
>> If this behavior is explicitly documented in cleanup.h, there is no reason not
>> to use it as intended. I also support Krzysztof’s suggestion.
> 
> It looks quite ugly, and it can't be mixed with the usual goto
> cleanups (I suspect some care is needed with switch cases too), so we
> must be careful where we use it. It's not obvious that this pattern
> should be used in every function. However, where it's used, it should,
> of course, be used correctly.
> 
> Thanks for the fixes, Krzysztof.
> 
> Amir, if you're happy with the fixes, can you give your R-B for each of them?
> 
> Thanks,
> Jens

Thanks Jens.

Sorry for the late response, I was on leave ;).

I'll do.

Regards,
Amir

Re: [PATCH 1/3] tee: qcomtee: call: Fix confusing cleanup.h syntax

[Jeff Johnson]

On 12/11/2025 5:39 PM, Sumit Garg wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 12, 2025 at 02:07:40AM +0100, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>> Sure, fair. I just don't get why introducing cleanup.h without actually
>> accepting its explicitly documented style...
> TBH, it is likely overlooked during review of the QTEE driver. Having a
> builtin warning for the undesired syntax would help the reviewers here.

It is in the works:
https://patch.msgid.link/20251203-aheev-checkpatch-uninitialized-free-v7-1-841e3b31d8f3@gmail.com

Re: [PATCH 1/3] tee: qcomtee: call: Fix confusing cleanup.h syntax

[Amirreza Zarrabi]

On 12/8/2025 1:08 PM, 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@oss.qualcomm.com>
> ---
>  drivers/tee/qcomtee/call.c | 17 ++++++++---------
>  1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
> 

Reviewed-by: Amirreza Zarrabi <amirreza.zarrabi@oss.qualcomm.com>

- Amir

> diff --git a/drivers/tee/qcomtee/call.c b/drivers/tee/qcomtee/call.c
> index 65f9140d4e1f..8f8830f0df26 100644
> --- a/drivers/tee/qcomtee/call.c
> +++ b/drivers/tee/qcomtee/call.c
> @@ -395,9 +395,7 @@ static int qcomtee_object_invoke(struct tee_context *ctx,
>  				 struct tee_ioctl_object_invoke_arg *arg,
>  				 struct tee_param *params)
>  {
> -	struct qcomtee_object_invoke_ctx *oic __free(kfree) = NULL;
>  	struct qcomtee_context_data *ctxdata = ctx->data;
> -	struct qcomtee_arg *u __free(kfree) = NULL;
>  	struct qcomtee_object *object;
>  	int i, ret, result;
>  
> @@ -412,12 +410,14 @@ static int qcomtee_object_invoke(struct tee_context *ctx,
>  	}
>  
>  	/* Otherwise, invoke a QTEE object: */
> -	oic = qcomtee_object_invoke_ctx_alloc(ctx);
> +	struct qcomtee_object_invoke_ctx *oic __free(kfree) =
> +		qcomtee_object_invoke_ctx_alloc(ctx);
>  	if (!oic)
>  		return -ENOMEM;
>  
>  	/* +1 for ending QCOMTEE_ARG_TYPE_INV. */
> -	u = kcalloc(arg->num_params + 1, sizeof(*u), GFP_KERNEL);
> +	struct qcomtee_arg *u __free(kfree) = kcalloc(arg->num_params + 1, sizeof(*u),
> +						      GFP_KERNEL);
>  	if (!u)
>  		return -ENOMEM;
>  
> @@ -562,9 +562,8 @@ static int qcomtee_supp_send(struct tee_context *ctx, u32 errno, u32 num_params,
>  
>  static int qcomtee_open(struct tee_context *ctx)
>  {
> -	struct qcomtee_context_data *ctxdata __free(kfree) = NULL;
> -
> -	ctxdata = kzalloc(sizeof(*ctxdata), GFP_KERNEL);
> +	struct qcomtee_context_data *ctxdata __free(kfree) = kzalloc(sizeof(*ctxdata),
> +								     GFP_KERNEL);
>  	if (!ctxdata)
>  		return -ENOMEM;
>  
> @@ -645,12 +644,12 @@ static void qcomtee_get_version(struct tee_device *teedev,
>  static void qcomtee_get_qtee_feature_list(struct tee_context *ctx, u32 id,
>  					  u32 *version)
>  {
> -	struct qcomtee_object_invoke_ctx *oic __free(kfree) = NULL;
>  	struct qcomtee_object *client_env, *service;
>  	struct qcomtee_arg u[3] = { 0 };
>  	int result;
>  
> -	oic = qcomtee_object_invoke_ctx_alloc(ctx);
> +	struct qcomtee_object_invoke_ctx *oic __free(kfree) =
> +		qcomtee_object_invoke_ctx_alloc(ctx);
>  	if (!oic)
>  		return;
>  

Re: [PATCH 1/3] tee: qcomtee: call: Fix confusing cleanup.h syntax

[Jens Wiklander]

On Sun, Jan 4, 2026 at 11:42 PM Amirreza Zarrabi
<amirreza.zarrabi@oss.qualcomm.com> wrote:
>
>
> On 12/8/2025 1:08 PM, 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@oss.qualcomm.com>
> > ---
> >  drivers/tee/qcomtee/call.c | 17 ++++++++---------
> >  1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
> >
>
> Reviewed-by: Amirreza Zarrabi <amirreza.zarrabi@oss.qualcomm.com>

I'm picking up this.

Thanks,
Jens