From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Date: Wed, 16 May 2018 14:42:54 +0300 From: Dan Carpenter To: Stephen Boyd Cc: Paul Burton , Colin King , Michael Turquette , linux-mips@linux-mips.org, linux-clk@vger.kernel.org, kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] clk: boston: fix memory leak of 'onecell' on error return paths Message-ID: <20180516114254.wffddft537t45yfg@mwanda> References: <20180509134031.11611-1-colin.king@canonical.com> <20180509140135.4dndt3baomtxups5@mwanda> <20180509163311.alvyibwwuwkumyxf@pburton-laptop> <20180510065951.fiojonx5f776z5jm@mwanda> <152640892003.34267.13202118557714072290@swboyd.mtv.corp.google.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: <152640892003.34267.13202118557714072290@swboyd.mtv.corp.google.com> List-ID: On Tue, May 15, 2018 at 11:28:40AM -0700, Stephen Boyd wrote: > Quoting Dan Carpenter (2018-05-09 23:59:51) > > It would be nice to make things static check clean. One idea would be > > that the static checker could ignore resource leaks in __init functions. > > > > Typically if the stuff is so important that it doesn't work without it > then we throw in a panic() or a BUG() call to indicate that all hope is > lost. Otherwise, I'm not sure what's wrong with adding in proper error > paths for clean recovery. In clk_boston_setup() then we'd have to put a ton of BUG()s in there to silence all the warnings. Right now the static checkers only care about kmalloc() but in a year or two they'll be clever enough to care about everything leaked in this function. I don't think adding BUG() calls is a good idea. Plus, I have a private static checker warning for that. When the BTRFS filesystem was merged 10 years ago it used to call BUG() all the time if allocations failed so I made a static checker warning to spot that anti-pattern... regards, dan carpenter