Thank you for your contribution! Sashiko AI review found 1 potential issue(s) to consider: - [Low] fs: mixing goto and scoped_guard in __set_oom_adj violates cleanup rules --
commit da2e9c3ae4d6602d37bc777bfafc43d2f081d385 Author: Ye Liu <[email protected]> fs: convert process/thread iterators to for_each_*_rculock Replace the manual rcu_read_lock()/rcu_read_unlock() pairs combined with for_each_process() and for_each_process_thread() loops in fs/ with the for_each_*_rculock() macros, which scope the RCU read lock to the loop body via scoped_guard(rcu). > diff --git a/fs/proc/base.c b/fs/proc/base.c > index 58be389424605..2c47d838a1c76 100644 > --- a/fs/proc/base.c > +++ b/fs/proc/base.c > @@ -1161,8 +1161,7 @@ static int __set_oom_adj(struct file *file, int > oom_adj, bool legacy) > if (mm) { > struct task_struct *p; > > - rcu_read_lock(); > - for_each_process(p) { > + for_each_process_rculock(p) { [Severity: Low] Does introducing for_each_process_rculock() here violate the rule against mixing scope-based cleanup and goto error handling in the same function? This macro expands to scoped_guard(rcu), introducing scope-based cleanup into __set_oom_adj(). However, this function already uses manual goto-based error handling: fs/proc/base.c:__set_oom_adj() { ... if (oom_adj < task->signal->oom_score_adj && !capable(CAP_SYS_RESOURCE)) { err = -EACCES; goto err_unlock; } ... err_unlock: mutex_unlock(&oom_adj_mutex); put_task_struct(task); return err; } The subsystem guidelines require converting all resources in a function to scope-based cleanup, or none at all, explicitly prohibiting mixing both in the same function. -- Sashiko AI review ยท https://sashiko.dev/#/patchset/[email protected]?part=13
