Hello! This is an experimental automated report about issues detected by Coverity from a scan of next-20191108 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: 593669fa8fd7 ("btrfs: block-group: Refactor btrfs_read_block_groups()") Coverity reported the following: *** CID 1487834: Concurrent data access violations (MISSING_LOCK) /fs/btrfs/block-group.c: 1721 in read_one_block_group() 1715 * truncate the old free space cache inode and 1716 * setup a new one. 1717 * b) Setting 'dirty flag' makes sure that we flush 1718 * the new space cache info onto disk. 1719 */ 1720 if (btrfs_test_opt(info, SPACE_CACHE)) vvv CID 1487834: Concurrent data access violations (MISSING_LOCK) vvv Accessing "cache->disk_cache_state" without holding lock "btrfs_block_group_cache.lock". Elsewhere, "btrfs_block_group_cache.disk_cache_state" is accessed with "btrfs_block_group_cache.lock" held 12 out of 13 times (6 of these accesses strongly imply that it is necessary). 1721 cache->disk_cache_state = BTRFS_DC_CLEAR; 1722 } 1723 read_extent_buffer(leaf, &bgi, btrfs_item_ptr_offset(leaf, slot), 1724 sizeof(bgi)); 1725 if (!mixed && ((cache->flags & BTRFS_BLOCK_GROUP_METADATA) && 1726 (cache->flags & BTRFS_BLOCK_GROUP_DATA))) { 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 these lines (but double-check the "Fixes" first): Reported-by: coverity-bot <keescook+coverity-bot@xxxxxxxxxxxx> Addresses-Coverity-ID: 1487834 ("Concurrent data access violations") Fixes: 593669fa8fd7 ("btrfs: block-group: Refactor btrfs_read_block_groups()") Thanks for your attention! -- Coverity-bot
