From: Robertus Diawan Chris <robertusdchris@gmail.com>
To: Nathan Chancellor <nathan@kernel.org>
Cc: nsc@kernel.org, linux-kbuild@vger.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
linux-kernel-mentees@lists.linuxfoundation.org,
skhan@linuxfoundation.org, me@brighamcampbell.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] modpost: release allocation when early return no suffix .o in read_symbols()
Date: Thu, 18 Jun 2026 04:46:35 +0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20260617214635.GA4766@soyboi> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <178167011232.2064238.5669414796099955471.b4-review@b4>
Hello Nathan,
On Tue, Jun 16, 2026 at 09:21:52PM -0700, Nathan Chancellor wrote:
> On Wed, 10 Jun 2026 12:25:50 +0700, Robertus Diawan Chris <robertusdchris@gmail.com> wrote:
> > diff --git a/scripts/mod/modpost.c b/scripts/mod/modpost.c
> > index abbcd3fc1394..8e231544f9f3 100644
> > --- a/scripts/mod/modpost.c
> > +++ b/scripts/mod/modpost.c
> > @@ -1585,6 +1585,7 @@ static void read_symbols(const char *modname)
> >
> > if (!strends(modname, ".o")) {
> > error("%s: filename must be suffixed with .o\n", modname);
> > + parse_elf_finish(&info);
> > return;
> > }
> >
>
> Thanks for the patch! While this change appears to be correct, would
> moving the strends() if block before the parse_elf() one resolve this as
> well?
Yes, moving the strends() if block before the parse_elf() also resolve
this too. The reason I didn't do that because I am still not sure if
changing the order will have any effect. I already take a look at the
code and it looks like strends() if block and the parse_elf() didn't
depends on each other, but just in case I missed something, I decided
not to change the execution order and just add parse_elf_finish().
> I think I would prefer going that route because neither check really
> depends on the other and we have to think less about unwinding
> with the checks flipped.
Now that you already confirm that neither check depends on each other, I
am more confident to take this approach.
> Furthermore, modpost is a relatively short running host utility, so
> I don't really think it is worth optimizing for resource leaks like
> this.
I want to confirm something first, do you mind if I send v2 patch with
the change of moving strends() if block before parse_elf() in
read_symbols()? I mean, if you feel like this is unnecessary, I will
drop this patch. I don't mind either way.
Thank you for the feedback.
Best regards,
Robertus Diawan Chris
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-06-17 21:46 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-06-10 5:25 [PATCH] modpost: release allocation when early return no suffix .o in read_symbols() Robertus Diawan Chris
2026-06-17 4:21 ` Nathan Chancellor
2026-06-17 21:46 ` Robertus Diawan Chris [this message]
2026-06-17 22:30 ` Nathan Chancellor
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20260617214635.GA4766@soyboi \
--to=robertusdchris@gmail.com \
--cc=linux-kbuild@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel-mentees@lists.linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=me@brighamcampbell.com \
--cc=nathan@kernel.org \
--cc=nsc@kernel.org \
--cc=skhan@linuxfoundation.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox