Re: New Defects reported by Coverity Scan for ceph (fwd)

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Tue, 30 Sep 2014, Gregory Farnum wrote:
> 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?

There are annotations but I don't know how they work.  I've been marking 
them through the web interface...

sage
--
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




[Index of Archives]     [CEPH Users]     [Ceph Large]     [Information on CEPH]     [Linux BTRFS]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Video for Linux]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]
  Powered by Linux