Hello, On Mon 11-11-19 17:35:18, coverity-bot wrote: > 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: > > c290ea01abb7 ("fs: Remove ext3 filesystem driver") > > Coverity reported the following: > > *** CID 1487847: Memory - corruptions (ARRAY_VS_SINGLETON) > /include/linux/jbd2.h: 351 in jbd_unlock_bh_journal_head() > 345 { > 346 bit_spin_lock(BH_JournalHead, &bh->b_state); > 347 } > 348 > 349 static inline void jbd_unlock_bh_journal_head(struct buffer_head *bh) > 350 { > vvv CID 1487847: Memory - corruptions (ARRAY_VS_SINGLETON) > vvv Passing "&bh->b_state" to function "bit_spin_unlock" which uses it as an array. This might corrupt or misinterpret adjacent memory locations. > 351 bit_spin_unlock(BH_JournalHead, &bh->b_state); > 352 } This is obviously false positive. I guess coverity needs to learn about bit-spinlocks so that it doesn't generate false positive report about each usage? Honza > 353 > 354 #define J_ASSERT(assert) BUG_ON(!(assert)) > 355 > 356 #define J_ASSERT_BH(bh, expr) J_ASSERT(expr) > > 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: 1487847 ("Memory - corruptions") > Fixes: c290ea01abb7 ("fs: Remove ext3 filesystem driver") > > > Thanks for your attention! > > -- > Coverity-bot -- Jan Kara <jack@xxxxxxxx> SUSE Labs, CR
