[PATCH v4] workqueue: Remove unnecessary kfree(NULL)

[PATCH v4] workqueue: Remove unnecessary kfree(NULL)

[qiang.zhang]

From: Zhang Qiang <qiang.zhang@windriver.com>

The callback function "rcu_free_wq" could be called after memory
was released for "wq->rescuer" already and assignment is empty. so
remove unnecessary kfree(NULL).

Fixes: def98c84b6cd ("workqueue: Fix spurious sanity check failures in destroy_workqueue()")
Fixes: 8efe1223d73c ("workqueue: Fix missing kfree(rescuer) in destroy_workqueue()")

Signed-off-by: Zhang Qiang <qiang.zhang@windriver.com>
---
 v1->v2->v3->v4:
 Modify wrong submission information.

 kernel/workqueue.c | 1 -
 1 file changed, 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/kernel/workqueue.c b/kernel/workqueue.c
index 891ccad5f271..a2451cdcd503 100644
--- a/kernel/workqueue.c
+++ b/kernel/workqueue.c
@@ -3491,7 +3491,6 @@ static void rcu_free_wq(struct rcu_head *rcu)
 	else
 		free_workqueue_attrs(wq->unbound_attrs);
 
-	kfree(wq->rescuer);
 	kfree(wq);
 }
 
-- 
2.24.1

Re: [PATCH v4] workqueue: Remove unnecessary kfree() call in rcu_free_wq()

[Markus Elfring]

> The callback function "rcu_free_wq" could be called after memory
> was released for "wq->rescuer" already and assignment is empty. so
> remove unnecessary kfree(NULL).

I have got the impression that also this wording approach contains weaknesses.
How do you think about a wording variant like the following?

   The data structure member “wq->rescuer” was reset to a null pointer
   in one if branch. It was passed to a call of the function “kfree”
   in the callback function “rcu_free_wq” (which was eventually executed).
   The function “kfree” does not perform more meaningful data processing
   for a passed null pointer (besides immediately returning from such a call).
   Thus delete this function call which became unnecessary with the referenced
   software update.


> Fixes: def98c84b6cd ("workqueue: Fix spurious sanity check failures in destroy_workqueue()")

This change triggered another collateral evolution finally.
Would you like to detect similarly questionable function calls
by advanced source code analysis?


> Fixes: 8efe1223d73c ("workqueue: Fix missing kfree(rescuer) in destroy_workqueue()")

Please delete this tag from the change description
(because I find that it is not so relevant here.)


>  v1->v2->v3->v4:
>  Modify wrong submission information.

Will it be nicer to mention the adjustment of the commit message?

Regards,
Markus

Re: [PATCH v4] workqueue: Remove unnecessary kfree() call in rcu_free_wq()

[Markus Elfring]

> The callback function "rcu_free_wq" could be called after memory
> was released for "wq->rescuer" already and assignment is empty. so
> remove unnecessary kfree(NULL).

I have got the impression that also this wording approach contains weaknesses.
How do you think about a wording variant like the following?

   The data structure member “wq->rescuer” was reset to a null pointer
   in one if branch. It was passed to a call of the function “kfree”
   in the callback function “rcu_free_wq” (which was eventually executed).
   The function “kfree” does not perform more meaningful data processing
   for a passed null pointer (besides immediately returning from such a call).
   Thus delete this function call which became unnecessary with the referenced
   software update.


> Fixes: def98c84b6cd ("workqueue: Fix spurious sanity check failures in destroy_workqueue()")

This change triggered another collateral evolution finally.
Would you like to detect similarly questionable function calls
by advanced source code analysis?


> Fixes: 8efe1223d73c ("workqueue: Fix missing kfree(rescuer) in destroy_workqueue()")

Please delete this tag from the change description
(because I find that it is not so relevant here.)


>  v1->v2->v3->v4:
>  Modify wrong submission information.

Will it be nicer to mention the adjustment of the commit message?

Regards,
Markus