linux-kernel - Re: drivers/spi/spi.c:1160:3-9: preceding lock on line 1153

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20160809164348.GD9347@sirena.org.uk>
Date:	Tue, 9 Aug 2016 17:43:48 +0100
From:	Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
To:	Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@...6.fr>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kbuild-all@...org
Subject: Re: drivers/spi/spi.c:1160:3-9: preceding lock on line 1153

On Tue, Aug 09, 2016 at 06:35:06PM +0200, Julia Lawall wrote:
> On Tue, 9 Aug 2016, Mark Brown wrote:
> > On Tue, Aug 09, 2016 at 06:19:13PM +0200, Julia Lawall wrote:

> > > Looks worth checking.

> > I don't really have any idea what this is trying to tell me, sorry.

> The important lines are the ones with the @.  Line 1153 takes a lock and
> in line 1160 there is a return in error handling code with the lock still
> held.  The semantic patch that reported this should also only give a
> report if there is some patch out of the function that releases the lock.
> Overall, it seems unusual to keep the lock in an error case.

I'm not sure how I'm supposed to identify that from the message to be
honest - I'd expect something that more directly referenced both lines
and ideally said something like "lock held when returning".  But yes, it
does look like an issue thanks.

Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (474 bytes)