Hello! This is an experimental semi-automated report about issues detected by Coverity from a scan of next-20200422 as part of the linux-next 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 commits: Wed Feb 22 15:45:33 2017 -0800 36005bae205d ("mm/swap: allocate swap slots in batches") Coverity reported the following: *** CID 1492705: Memory - corruptions (OVERRUN) /mm/swapfile.c: 972 in scan_swap_map() 966 static unsigned long scan_swap_map(struct swap_info_struct *si, 967 unsigned char usage) 968 { 969 swp_entry_t entry; 970 int n_ret; 971 vvv CID 1492705: Memory - corruptions (OVERRUN) vvv Overrunning struct type swp_entry_t of 8 bytes by passing it to a function which accesses it at byte offset 15. 972 n_ret = scan_swap_map_slots(si, usage, 1, &entry); 973 974 if (n_ret) 975 return swp_offset(entry); 976 else 977 return 0; 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): Human edit: I can't tell if this is a false positive. The detailed analysis points at: 844 si->cluster_next = offset + 1; 67. index_const: Pointer slots directly indexed by n_ret++ with value 1. 845 slots[n_ret++] = swp_entry(si->type, offset); It has an execution path that reaches there, but I don't know if it's actually possible... Reported-by: coverity-bot <keescook+coverity-bot@xxxxxxxxxxxx> Addresses-Coverity-ID: 1492705 ("Memory - corruptions") Fixes: 36005bae205d ("mm/swap: allocate swap slots in batches") Thanks for your attention! -- Coverity-bot
