On Tue, Sep 30, 2014 at 6:59 AM, Sage Weil <sweil@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Looks like recent changes from Greg, Loic, and I.
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: scan-admin@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> To: undisclosed-recipients:;
> Cc:
> Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2014 06:21:08 -0700
> Subject: New Defects reported by Coverity Scan for ceph
>
>
> Hi,
>
>
> Please find the latest report on new defect(s) introduced to ceph found with Coverity Scan.
>
> Defect(s) Reported-by: Coverity Scan
> Showing 4 of 4 defect(s)
>
>
> ** CID 1242019: Data race condition (MISSING_LOCK)
> /msg/Pipe.cc: 230 in Pipe::DelayedDelivery::entry()()
>
> ** CID 1242021: Resource leak (RESOURCE_LEAK)
> /test/librados/tier.cc: 1026 in LibRadosTwoPoolsPP_EvictSnap2_Test::TestBody()()
> /test/librados/tier.cc: 1022 in LibRadosTwoPoolsPP_EvictSnap2_Test::TestBody()()
> /test/librados/tier.cc: 1040 in LibRadosTwoPoolsPP_EvictSnap2_Test::TestBody()()
> /test/librados/tier.cc: 1037 in LibRadosTwoPoolsPP_EvictSnap2_Test::TestBody()()
>
> ** CID 1242020: Resource leak (RESOURCE_LEAK)
> /test/librados/aio.cc: 168 in LibRadosAio_TooBig_Test::TestBody()()
>
> ** CID 1242018: Resource leak (RESOURCE_LEAK)
> /test/librados/aio.cc: 188 in LibRadosAio_TooBigPP_Test::TestBody()()
> /test/librados/aio.cc: 190 in LibRadosAio_TooBigPP_Test::TestBody()()
> /test/librados/aio.cc: 187 in LibRadosAio_TooBigPP_Test::TestBody()()
>
>
> ________________________________________________________________________________________________________
> *** CID 1242019: Data race condition (MISSING_LOCK)
> /msg/Pipe.cc: 230 in Pipe::DelayedDelivery::entry()()
> 224 if (flush_count > 0) {
> 225 --flush_count;
> 226 active_flush = true;
> 227 }
> 228 if (pipe->in_q->can_fast_dispatch(m)) {
> 229 if (!stop_fast_dispatching_flag) {
>>>> CID 1242019: Data race condition (MISSING_LOCK)
>>>> Accessing "this->delay_dispatching" without holding lock "Mutex._m". Elsewhere, "_ZN4Pipe15DelayedDeliveryE.delay_dispatching" is accessed with "Mutex._m" held 1 out of 2 times (1 of these accesses strongly imply that it is necessary).
> 230 delay_dispatching = true;
> 231 delay_lock.Unlock();
> 232 pipe->in_q->fast_dispatch(m);
> 233 delay_lock.Lock();
> 234 delay_dispatching = false;
> 235 if (stop_fast_dispatching_flag) {
This one's a false positive. (delay_dispatching is protected by the
delay_lock, but I think it's picking up on the Pipe::lock which is
held when DelayedDelivery is constructed and initialized.) Is there a
way I should annotate this, or is it something we need to adjust in
the Coverity web interface?
-Greg
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe ceph-devel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
