Fwd: [RFC PATCH 0/1] compiler_types.h: introduce ASSUME_NONNULL macro for static analysis

[Raka Gunarto]

Hi everyone, I'm a really new contributor and I sent off this
RFC to LKML <https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20250723140129.276874-1-rakagunarto@gmail.com/T/#m1372eb992552491ac37f46f27e5ad09d9efa35ad>,
when I probably should have floated the idea
here first. In any case, I've pasted my RFC patch below
and I would really like any feedback / suggestions on the
idea.

Thanks,
Raka

---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Raka Gunarto <rakagunarto at gmail.com>
Date: Wed, Jul 23, 2025 at 3:01 PM
Subject: [RFC PATCH 0/1] compiler_types.h: introduce ASSUME_NONNULL
macro for static analysis
To: <linux-kernel at vger.kernel.org>
Cc: Raka Gunarto <rakagunarto at gmail.com>


This proposed patch introduces a new macro ASSUME_NONNULL to suppress false
positives of null pointer dereference warnings during static analysis.

The patch only includes the macro definition for Clang so far, as I could
not silence GCC's static analyzer false positives without ensuring that
it wouldn't affect the emitted code.

I tested this patch and use of the macro successfully eliminates false
positives when used properly and does not affect final code generation.

I am new to contributing to the kernel, so I apologise in advance for
any mistakes. I welcome all feedback or suggestions for improvement.

Rationale:
- Use of this optional macro can silence false positives which may reduce
  patches that fix false positives (such as AI generated patches).
- Clear documentation of a non null assumption for other developers
- Signal to reviewers to subject patches that use this macro to
  additional scrutiny, and require justification on why
  there isn't a null check in the code instead.

Motivation:
While running Clang's static analyzer on the Linux kernel, I encountered
hundreds of false positives related to null pointer dereferences.
One such example is in mm/slub.c, where the static analyzer
incorrectly reports a potential null pointer dereference on line 3169.

n is non-null at that point, but it is non obvious to the static analyzer
(and to humans) that get_node() will always return a non-null pointer.
Since it is in a performance crtical context, adding a null check
would be undesirable (I think). A macro like this can be used to
signal the pointer is invariably non-null, without adding a runtime
check.

Raka Gunarto (1):
  compiler_types.h: introduce ASSUME_NONNULL macro for static analysis

 include/linux/compiler-clang.h | 10 ++++++++++
 include/linux/compiler_types.h |  5 +++++
 2 files changed, 15 insertions(+)

--
2.43.0