On Mon, Oct 28, 2019 at 05:27:59PM -0600, Jens Axboe wrote: > On 10/28/19 5:05 PM, coverity-bot wrote: > > Hello! > > > > This is an experimental automated report about issues detected by Coverity > > from a scan of next-20191025 as part of the linux-next weekly scan project: > > https://scan.coverity.com/projects/linux-next-weekly-scan > > > > You're getting this email because you were associated with the identified > > lines of code (noted below) that were touched by recent commits: > > > > 46134db8fdc5 ("io-wq: small threadpool implementation for io_uring") > > > > Coverity reported the following: > > > > *** CID 1487365: Program hangs (LOCK) > > /fs/io-wq.c: 349 in io_wqe_worker() > > 343 io_worker_handle_work(worker); > > 344 else > > 345 spin_unlock(&wqe->lock); > > 346 } > > 347 > > 348 io_worker_exit(worker); > > vvv CID 1487365: Program hangs (LOCK) > > vvv Returning without unlocking "(*wqe).lock". > > 349 return 0; > > 350 } > > 351 > > 352 /* > > 353 * Check head of free list for an available worker. If one isn't available, > > 354 * caller must wake up the wq manager to create one. > > > > If this is a false positive, please let us know so we can mark it as > > such, or teach the Coverity rules to be smarter. If not, please make > > sure fixes get into linux-next. :) For patches fixing this, please > > include: > > It's a false positive, lock is dropped on non-zero return. Does that happen in the caller side? I'll see if I can figure out how to teach coverity about that... Hmmm Thanks! -- Kees Cook
