linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] perf bpf: Fix lock/unlock imbalance in perf_env__find

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: <6a40243b-4e6e-3e15-3faa-bd2c053efd65@embeddedor.com>
Date:   Mon, 22 Apr 2019 11:07:30 -0500
From:   "Gustavo A. R. Silva" <gustavo@...eddedor.com>
To:     Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <arnaldo.melo@...il.com>
Cc:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com>,
        Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...hat.com>,
        Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] perf bpf: Fix lock/unlock imbalance in
 perf_env__find_btf() info



On 4/22/19 11:05 AM, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:
> Em Mon, Apr 22, 2019 at 10:10:56AM -0500, Gustavo A. R. Silva escreveu:
>> Fix lock/unlock imbalance by moving the call to up_read() just after
>> the *out* label.
>>
>> Addresses-Coverity-ID: 1444762 ("Missing unlock")
>> Fixes: 2db7b1e0bd49 ("perf bpf: Return NULL when RB tree lookup fails in perf_env__find_btf()")
>> Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavo@...eddedor.com>
>> ---
>>  tools/perf/util/env.c | 2 +-
>>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/tools/perf/util/env.c b/tools/perf/util/env.c
>> index 9494f9dc61ec..6a3eaf7d9353 100644
>> --- a/tools/perf/util/env.c
>> +++ b/tools/perf/util/env.c
>> @@ -115,8 +115,8 @@ struct btf_node *perf_env__find_btf(struct perf_env *env, __u32 btf_id)
>>  	}
>>  	node = NULL;
>>  
>> -	up_read(&env->bpf_progs.lock);
>>  out:
>> +	up_read(&env->bpf_progs.lock);
>>  	return node;
>>  }
> 
> too late, this was fixed already, also detected by coverity :-)
> 

Good to know it's fixed now. :)

Thanks
--
Gustavo