Re: [PATCH v2 10/10] add UNLEAK annotation for reducing leak false positives

On Tue, Sep 19, 2017 at 01:45:52PM -0700, Jonathan Tan wrote:

The following comments are assuming that we're going to standardize on
UNLEAK(var); (with the semicolon).

Yeah, I assumed we would. We don't have to, since this really is sort-of
magical, but I think the code looks better with it.

On Fri, 8 Sep 2017 02:38:41 -0400
Jeff King [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

+#ifdef SUPPRESS_ANNOTATED_LEAKS
+extern void unleak_memory(const void *ptr, size_t len);
+#define UNLEAK(var) unleak_memory(&(var), sizeof(var));

I would feel better if the semicolon was omitted. I don't think it
matters in this particular case, though.

You end up with a double semi-colon. Some linters might complain.

quoted

+#else
+#define UNLEAK(var)

I think this should be defined to be something (for example, "do {}
while (0)"), at least so that we have compiler errors when UNLEAK(var)
is used incorrectly (for example, without the semicolon) when
SUPPRESS_ANNOTATED_LEAKS is not defined.

Seems reasonable.

I think both are worth doing, but the patch is already in next so we
need to do it on top. Do you want to prepare a patch?

-Peff