Hello Steffen Klassert,
The patch fca11ebde3f0: "esp4: Reorganize esp_output" from Apr 14,
2017, leads to the following static checker warning:
net/ipv4/esp4.c:444 esp_output_tail()
error: locking inconsistency. We assume 'spin_lock:&x->lock' is both locked and unlocked at the start.
net/ipv4/esp4.c
353
354 aead = x->data;
355 alen = crypto_aead_authsize(aead);
356 ivlen = crypto_aead_ivsize(aead);
357
358 tmp = esp_alloc_tmp(aead, esp->nfrags + 2, extralen);
359 if (!tmp) {
360 spin_unlock_bh(&x->lock);
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Here we assume we're called with the lock held.
361 err = -ENOMEM;
362 goto error;
363 }
364
365 extra = esp_tmp_extra(tmp);
366 iv = esp_tmp_iv(aead, tmp, extralen);
367 req = esp_tmp_req(aead, iv);
368 sg = esp_req_sg(aead, req);
369
370 if (esp->inplace)
371 dsg = sg;
372 else
373 dsg = &sg[esp->nfrags];
374
375 esph = esp_output_set_extra(skb, x, esp->esph, extra);
376 esp->esph = esph;
377
378 sg_init_table(sg, esp->nfrags);
379 skb_to_sgvec(skb, sg,
380 (unsigned char *)esph - skb->data,
381 assoclen + ivlen + esp->clen + alen);
382
383 if (!esp->inplace) {
384 int allocsize;
385 struct page_frag *pfrag = &x->xfrag;
386
387 allocsize = ALIGN(skb->data_len, L1_CACHE_BYTES);
388
389 spin_lock_bh(&x->lock);
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
But here we take it ourselves.
390 if (unlikely(!skb_page_frag_refill(allocsize, pfrag, GFP_ATOMIC))) {
391 spin_unlock_bh(&x->lock);
392 err = -ENOMEM;
393 goto error;
394 }
395
Same thing in ipv6. Which is weird and suggests that I'm reading the
code wrong...
net/ipv6/esp6.c:417 esp6_output_tail()
error: locking inconsistency. We assume 'spin_lock:&x->lock' is both locked and unlocked at the start.
regards,
dan carpenter
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kernel-janitors" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
